THE  BROSS  LIBRARY 

VOLUME  UI 


THE    BROSX    PRIZE     .     .     .     1905 


THE  ^ROBLEJ! 
THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 


CONSIDERED  WITH   REFERENCE 
TO  RECENT  CRITICISM/ 


BY 

JAMES   ORR,   D.D. 

PROFESSOR   OF  APOLOGETICS  AND  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY 
UNITED   FREE  CHURCH   COLLEGE,  GLASGOW 


"Nubecula  eit,  quae  cito  evanescet." 


CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

NEW    YORK 1906     f /Vf f 


TO 

THE   PRESIDENT,   TRUSTEES,   AND   FACULTY 
OF 

LAKE    FOREST    COLLEGE 

8H)tg  Foltmu  ig  ©ratefullg  Urtueatrti 

BY 
THE  AUTHOR 


THE  BROSS  FOUNDATION 

IN  1879,  the  late  William  Bross  of  Chicago,  lieutenant- 
governor  of  Illinois  in  1866-1870,  desiring  to  make  some 
memorial  of  his  son,  Nathaniel  Bross,  who  had  died  in 
1856,  entered  into  an  agreement  with  the  "Trustees  of 
Lake  Forest  University,"  whereby  there  was  finally  trans- 
ferred to  the  said  Trustees  the  sum  of  Forty  Thousand 
Dollars,  the  income  of  which  was  to  accumulate  in  per- 
petuity for  successive  periods  of  ten  years,  at  compound 
interest,  the  accumulations  of  one  decade  to  be  spent  in 
the  following  decade,  for  the  purpose  of  stimulating  the 
production  of  the  best  books  or  treatises  "  on  the  connec- 
tion, relation,  and  mutual  bearing  of  any  practical  science, 
or  history  of  our  race,  or  the  facts  in  any  department  of 
knowledge,  with  and  upon  the  Christian  Religion." 

In  his  deed  of  gift  the  founder  had  in  view  "  the  religion 
of  the  Bible,  composed  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  as  commonly  received  in  the 
Presbyterian  and  other  evangelical  churches*'  His  object 
was  M  to  call  out  the  best  efforts  of  the  highest  talent  and  the 
ripest  scholarship  of  the  world,  to  illustrate  from  science,  or 
any  department  of  knowledge,  and  to  demonstrate,  the  divine 
origin/ and  authority  of  the  Christian  Scriptures ;  and,  fur- 
ther, w  show  how  both  Science  and  Revelation  coincide,  and 
to  prove  the  existence,  the  providence,  or  any  or  all  of  the  at- 
tributes of  the  one  living  and  true  God,  infinite,  eternal,  and 
unchangeable  in  His  being,  wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice, 
goodness  and  truth." 

iz 


x  TJie  Bross  Foundation 

At  the  close  of  the  Trust  Agreement,  the  donor  ex- 
pressed the  hope  that,  by  means  of  this  fund,  the  various 
authors  might,  "every  ten  years,  post  up  the  science  of  the 
world  and  show  how  it  illustrates  the  truth  of  the  Bible,  and 
the  existence  of  Grod"  and  that  thereby  "  the  gospel  of  our 
blessed  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  glories  of  His  sacrifice 
and  plan  of  salvation,"  might  be  preached  "  to  the  end  of 
time." 

The  books  or  treatises  procured  by  either  of  the  methods 
described  below  are  to  be  published  as  volumes  of  what  is 
to  be  known  as  "The  Bross  Library." 

The  gift  thus  contemplated  in  the  original  agreement  of 
1879  was  finally  consummated  in  1890.  The  first  decade 
of  the  accumulations  of  interest  having  closed  in  1900,  the 
Trustees  of  the  Bross  Fund  began  at  that  time  the  ad- 
ministration of  this  important  trust. 

The  Trust  Agreement  prescribes  two  methods  by  which 
the  production  of  books  of  the  above-mentioned  character 
is  to  be  stimulated :  — 

A.  The  Trustees  of  the  Bross  Fund  are  empowered  to 
select  able  scholars,  from  time  to  time,  to  prepare  books, 
upon  some  theme  within  the  terms  of  the  Trust  Agree- 
ment, that  would  "  illustrate  "  or  "  demonstrate  "  the 
Christian  Religion,  or  any  phase  of  it,  to  the  times  in 
which  we  live. 

Ordinarily,  the  authors  of  these  books  are  requested  to 
deliver  the  substance  of  such  books  in  the  form  of  lectures 
before  Lake  Forest  College,  and  any  of  the  general  public 
who  may  desire  to  attend  them,  such  courses  to  be  known 
as  The  Bross  Lectures. 

In  pursuance  of  the  first  method,  two  writers  have 
already  been  specially  appointed  :  — 


The  Jirngs  Foundation  xi 

(1)  The  Reverend   President    Francis  Landey  Patton, 
I).  I).,  LL.I).,  of   the    Princeton   Theological   Seminary, 
whnse    lectures  on  "Obligatory  Morality,"  delivered   in 
Lake  Forest  in  May,  1903,  are  being  revised  and  enlarged 
by  the  author  and  will  be  published  in  due  time  by  the 
Trustees  of  the  Bross  Fund ; 

(2)  The  Reverend  Professor  Marcus  Dods,  D.D.,  of 
New  College,  Edinburgh,  whose  lectures  on  "  The  Bible : 
Its  Origin  and  Nature,"  delivered   in    May,  1904,  have 
already  been  published  as  a  volume  of  the  Bross  Library. 

B.  The  second  method  for  securing  books  for  the  Bross 
Library  is  as  follows :  — 

One  or  more  premiums  or  prizes  are  to  be  offered  dur- 
ing each  decade,  the  competition  for  which  was  to  be 
thrown  open  to  "  the  scientific  men,  the  Christian  philoso- 
phers and  historians  of  all  nations." 

Accordingly,  in  1902,  a  prize  of  Six  Thousand  Dollars 
($6,000)  was  offered  for  the  best  book  fulfilling  any  of 
the  purposes  described  in  the  foregoing  extracts  from  the 
Trust  Agreement,  the  manuscripts  to  be  presented  on  or 
before  June  1,  1905. 

The  following  were  appointed  a  Committee  of  Judges  to 
make  the  award :  the  Reverend  George  Trumbull  Ladd, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Moral  Philosophy,  Yale  Uni- 
versity; Alexander  Thomas  Ormond,  Ph.D.,  LL.D., 
Professor  of  Philosophy,  Princeton  University,  and  the 
Reverend  George  Frederick  Wright,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Pro- 
fessor of  the  Harmony  of  Science  and  Revelation,  Oberlin 
College. 

The  authorship  of  the  various  essays  was  not  known 
to  the  judges  until  after  the  award  was  made,  the  under- 
signed having  been  the  custodian  of  the  sealed  envelopes 


xii  The  Bross  Foundation 

containing  the  names  of  the  writers  of  the  respective 
manuscripts. 

The  Committee  of  Judges  has  unanimously  awarded  the 
Bross  Prize  of  1905  to  the  essay  entitled  "  The  Problem 
of  the  Old  Testament,"  which  is  now  issued  as  Volume 
III  of  the  Bross  Library. 

The  next  Bross  prize  will  be  offered  about  1915,  and 
will  be  announced  in  due  time  by  the  Trustees  of  the  Bross 
Fund. 

The  Trust  Agreement  requires  that  once  in  every  thirty 
or  fifty  years  (according  as  the  Trustees  of  the  fund  may 
decide  at  the  time)  the  entire  sum  of  simple  interest  accu- 
mulated during  the  previous  decade  is  to  be  offered  as  a 
single  premium  or  prize  for  a  competition  similar  to  the 
one  which  has  just  been  completed. 

RICHARD  D.  HARLAN, 

President  of  Lake  Forest  College. 
LAKE  FOREST,  ILLINOIS, 
NOVEMBER,  1905. 


PREFACE 


THX  thanks  of  the  author  are  due,  in  the  first  place, 
to  the  Trustees  of  Lake  Forest  College,  and  to  the  ad- 
judicators acting  on  their  behalf,  who,  in  their  generosity, 
have  awarded  to  this  book  the  munificent  prize  at  their  dis- 
posal from  the  Bross  Fund.  It  is  right,  however,  to  say, 
that,  although  the  present  volume  has  been  so'fortunate  as  to 
obtain  the  Bross  Prize,  it  was  not  for  the  Bross  Prize,  or 
with  thought  or  knowledge  of  the  same,  that  the  book  was 
written.  But  for  a  long-standing  promise  to  the  English 
publishers,  it  is  doubtful  if  it  ever  would  have  been  written 
at  all  The  book  was  sent  to  press  in  the  beginning  of 
this  year,  and  the  delay  in  its  publication  has  been  due 
principally  to  the  afterthought  of  submitting  it  in  proof  to 
the  judgment  of  the  Bross  Prize  arbiters.  The  author  is 
deeply  sensible  of  the  courtesy  of  the  publishers  in  so 
readily  meeting  his  wishes  in  this  matter  at  inconvenience 
to  themselves. 

The  book  in  one  sense  is  not  new,  but  represents,  as 
will  probably  be  evident  from  its  perusal,  the  gathering 
up  of  thought,  reading,  and  formation  of  opinion  on  its 
subject,  going  as  far  back  as  the  days  of  the  old  Colenso 
and  Samuel  Davidson  controversies,  and  of  the  appearance 

of  Grafs  work  in  1866,  when  the  author's  interest  in  these 

m 


xiv  PREFACE 

questions  was  first  thoroughly  aroused — an  interest  which 
has  never  since  flagged.     Much  water  had  flowed  under 
the  bridge  in  the  interval,  and  the  author  entered  on  the 
task  of  putting  his  book  into  shape  with  many  misgivings. 
Still,  now  that  the  work  is  done,  and  apart  altogether  from 
the  material  reward  which  has  so  unexpectedly  come  to 
him,  he  does  not  regret  having  undertaken  it.     The  time 
is  past   when  the   discussion  of  Old  Testament  questions 
can  be  left  wholly  to  professional  experts,  who  represent 
one,  but  only  one,  of  the  many  points  of  view  necessary  to 
be  taken  into  account  in  considering  this  subject.     The 
conclusions  of  the  critics,  of  whom  personally  the  author 
would  speak  only  with  respect,  force  themselves  on  every- 
one's attention,  and  it  is  a  matter,  no  longer  of  choice,  but 
of  necessity,  to  pay  regard  to  their  opinions.     Especially 
for  one  engaged  in  the  teaching  of  theology,  in  whatever 
department,  it  is  absolutely  indispensable  to  possess  some 
acquaintance  with   the   methods  and  results  of  Old  Testa- 
ment study,  and  to  try  to  come  to  some  understanding  with 
himself  in  regard  to  the  theories  of  Old  Testament  religion 
and  literature  which  he  finds  prevailing  around  him.     The 
judgment  of  such  an  one  may  not  be  of  the  highest  value ; 
but,  if  it  is  his  own,  and  has  been  reached  at  the  cost  of 
prolonged  thought  and  study,  the  expression  of  it,  and  the 
exhibition  of  the  grounds  on  which  it  rests,  may  not  be 
without  help  to  others  working  their  way  through  similar 
perplexities. 

The  standpoint  of  the  present  book  can  be  readily 
understood  from  a  survey  of  the  Table  of  Contents,  or  from 
reading  the  sketch  of  its  scope  at  the  close  of  the  first 
chapter.  Those  who  expect  to  find  in  it  a  wholesale 
denunciation  of  critics  and  of  everything  that  savours  of 


PREFACE  XT 

criticism  will  be  disappointed.  The  author  is  not  of  the 
opinion  that  much  good  is  accomplished  by  the  violent  and 
^discriminating  assaults  on  the  critics  sometimes  indulged 
in  by  very  excellent  men.  The  case  which  the  critics 
present  must  be  met  in  a  calm,  temperate,  aud  scholarly 
way,  if  it  is  to  be  dealt  with  to  the  satisfaction  of  thought- 
ful Christian  people.  On  the  other  hand,  those  who  come 
to  the  book  expecting  to  find  in  it  agreement  with  the 
methods  and  results  of  the  reigning  critical  schools  will 
probably  be  not  less  disappointed.  The  author  has  here 
no  option.  With  the  best  will  in  the  world  to  accept 
whatever  new  light  criticism  may  have  to  throw  on  the 
structure  and  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament,  he  has  to 
confess  that  his  study  of  the  critical  developments — now 
for  over  thirty  years — has  increasingly  convinced  him  that, 
while  Biblical  students  are  indebted  to  the  critics,  and  to 
Old  Testament  science  generally,  for  valuable  help,  the 
Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis  now  in  the  ascendant  is, 
neither  in  its  methods  nor  in  its  results,  entitled  to  the  un- 
qualified confidence  often  claimed  for  it.  He  is  persuaded, 
on  the  contrary,  that  it  rests  on  erroneous  fundamental 
principles,  is  eaten  through  with  subjectivity,  and  must, 
if  carried  out  to  its  logical  issues  —  to  which,  happily, 
very  many  do  not  carry  it  —  prove  subversive  of  our 
Christian  faith,  and  of  such  belief  in,  and  use  of,  the 
Bible  as  alone  can  meet  the  needs  of  the  living  Church. 
Only,  if  this  is  to  be  shown,  it  must,  as  far  as  one's 
knowledge  enables  him  to  do  it,  be  done  thoroughly, 
and  with  due  regard  for  all  really  critically-ascertained 
facts. 

Being  designed  specially  for  an  English-reading  public, 
the  book  is  purposely  cast  in  a  form  as  little  technical  as 


xvi  PREFACE 

the  nature  of  the  subject  permits.  Hebrew  words  and  minute 
philological  discussions  are,  as  a  rule,  avoided,  and  where 
English  translations  of  foreign  books  exist,  references  are 
usually  made  to  these.  The  customary  form  of  the  divine 
name,  "  Jehovah,"  is  retained ;  but  in  quotations  authors 
have  been  allowed  to  use  their  own  various  spellings  of  the 
name.  If,  throughout,  a  seemingly  disproportionate  space 
is  given  to  German  writers,  this  is  simply  due  to  the 
fact  that  at  least  nine-tenths  of  the  "  Higher-Critical " 
theories  now  in  vogue  had  their  origin  and  elaboration  in 
Germany,  and  in  Britain  and  America  are  largely  of  the 
nature  of  importations.  One  early  learns  that,  if  these 
theories  are  to  be  dealt  with  satisfactorily,  it  can  only  be 
by  going  at  first  hand  to  the  sources — tapping  the  stream, 
as  it  were,  at  the  fountain-head.  At  the  same  time  the 
Indexes  will  show  that  representative  writers  of  English- 
speaking  countries,  of  different  schools,  have  by  no  means 
been  overlooked. 

In  so  immense  a  field,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that 
no  attempt  whatever  is  made  at  a  complete  or  exhaustive 
treatment  of  Old  Testament  questions.  That  would  have 
been  impossible  in  the  space,  even  had  the  author  possessed 
the  knowledge  or  ability  qualifying  him  to  undertake  it. 
Some  aspects  of  the  Old  Testament — the  Wisdom  Litera- 
ture, for  example — have  had  to  be  left  altogether  untouched. 
The  idea  has  been,  as  far  as  practicable,  to  concentrate 
attention  on  really  crucial  points,  and  to  make  these 
the  pivots  on  which  the  discussion  of  other  questions  turns 
(see  Appendix  to  first  chapter).  In  handling  so  large  a 
mass  of  material,  and  copying  and  re-copying  so  many 
references,  it  is  inevitable  that,  with  the  utmost  care,  slips 
and  mistakes  should  occur.  The  author  can  only  hope 


PREFACE  xvii 

that  these  will  not  prove  in  any  case  to  be  of  such  magni- 
tude as  seriously  to  affect  the  main  argument. 

Since  the  book  went  to  press  in  the  spring,  no  small 
amount  of  literature  has  appeared  to  which  it  would  be 
interesting  to  refer.  Allusion  may  here  only  be  made  to 
the  appearance  of  a  valuable  work  by  Professor  W.  Lotz,  of 
Erlangen,  entitled  Das  Alte  Testament  und  die  Wissenschaft, 
with  which,  in  parts,  the  treatment  in  these  pages  may  be 
compared.  It  would  be  endless  to  specify  articles  and 
pamphlets.  Professor  James  Robertson,  of  Glasgow,  has 
contributed  to  the  May  and  June  numbers  of  the  periodical 
Good  Words  two  interesting  papers  on  "  The  Beginnings 
of  Hebrew  History  and  Religion " ;  and  Professor  R  D. 
Wilson,  of  Princeton,  has  completed  in  July  and  October 
his  valuable  articles  on  "  Royal  Titles "  in  the  Princeton 
Theological  Review.  The  October  article  is  specially  devoted 
to  the  statements  of  Dr.  Driver  on  the  use  of  royal  titles 
in  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  Three  papers 
by  Professors  Driver  and  Kirkpatrick  on  The  Higher 
Criticism,  have  been  published,  aiming  at  the  removal  of 
misconceptions.  In  his  Itiblische  Theologie  des  Alien  Testa- 
ments Stade  has  re-stated  his  views  on  the  religion  of  Israel 
in  more  systematic  form. 

With  these  remarks,  the  book  must  be  left  to  its  own 
mission.  The  author  entertains  no  over-sanguine  expecta- 
tions as  to  its  effect  on  general  conviction,  but  he  is  not 
without  hope  that  it  may  at  least  rouse  to  reflection  some 
who  have  given  too  easy  an  assent  to  current  theories, 
simply  because  they  are  the  theories  of  the  hour.  He  has 
no  wish  to  be  ultra-dogmatic  on  any  point  Time  may 
not  justify  all  his  conclusions ;  but  he  has  the  strong  per- 
suasion that,  when  the  day  for  summing-up  comes — if 
I 


xviii  PREFACE 

ever  such  arrives — the  positions  into  which  men's  minds 
will  be  disposed  to  settle  will  be  found  much  nearer  those 
advocated  in  these  pages  than  they  will  be  to  those  of  the 
advanced  Wellhausen  school.  The  future  will  show. 

The  volume,  it  will  be  observed,  has  been  amply  fitted 
with  Tables  of  Contents,  Indexes,  and  cross-references  in 
footnotes.  These  should  make  the  task  of  consulting  its 
pages  comparatively  easy,  and  should  lighten  somewhat 
the  impression  of  abstruseness  created  by  certain  of  its 
chapters.  The  author's  thanks  are  specially  due  to  the 
Rev.  J.  M.  Wilson,  B.D.,  Highbury,  London,  and  to  George 
Hunter,  Esq.,  Glasgow,  for  valuable  aid  in  the  correction 
of  the  proofs. 

GLASGOW,  October  1906, 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 
INTRODUCTORY :  THE  PROBLEM  STATED.— Pp.  1-24. 

What  is  the  Old  Testament  1 

Problem  of  the  Old  Testament :  relation  to  criticism. 

I.  TBS  PROBLEM  TWOFOLD:  RELIGIOUS  AND  LITERARY. 

How  are  we  to  conceive  of  the  religion  1  natural  or  supernatural  ? 
How  are  we  to  conceive  of  the  literature  I  age,  authorship,  trust- 
worthiness, etc. 

Dependence  in  part  of  the  second  question  on  the  first. 
Popular  view  of  the  subject :  distrust  of  "  Higher  Criticism." 
Need  for  discrimination  of  issues. 
The  question  not  simply  one   between  "Higher  Critics"  and 

"Non-Higher  Critics."  . 

Deeper  issue  :  the  supernatural  in  the  religion  of  Israel. 
Division  on  this  subject  among  critics. 
Gains  from  critical  movement. 

IL  TEX  FUNDAMENTAL  ISSUE  :  ATTITUDE  TO  THE  SUPERNATURAL. 
Place  of  religion  of  Israel  among  historical  religions. 

Its  claim  to  a  special  divine  origin. 
Kuenen  and  the  "modern  "  school  of  criticism. 

Israel's  religion    "nothing  less,  but  also  nothing  more,"  than 
other  religions. 

Denial  of  supernatural  in  history  and  prophecy. 

"Natural  development"  alone  recognised. 
Petitio  jrrindjrii  involved  in  this  position. 

Facts  of  religion  and  history  to  be  impartially  examined. 

Importance  of  true  guiding  principles. 

A  case  of  competing  interpretations  of  Old  Testament. 

Ultimate  test  in  fitness  to  meet  the  facts. 


xx  CONTENTS 

III.  THE  LITERARY  PROBLEM  :  ITS  DEPENDENCE  ON  THIS  RELIGIOUS. 

Interest  of  Christian  faith  in  literary  questions. 

Belief  in  supernatural  not  necessarily  bound  up  with  questions  of 

dates  and  authorship. 

Yet  close  connection  between  critical  premises  and  critical  results. 
Critical  theories  have  scientific  value. 
Yet  mainly  elaborated  in  rationalistic  workshops. 

Rationalistic  ' '  set "  of  German  criticism. 
Rationalistic  basis  of  Wellhausen  theory. 

Its  temporary  popularity. 
Improbability   that  a  theory  evolved   from    this    basis    can    be 

adequate  for  Christian  faith. 
In  this  connection  dates,  etc.,  not  unimportant. 
Dates  often  determined  by  critical  assumptions :  used  to  subvert 

credibility. 
Need  of  recasting  of  theories  on  believing  principles. 

IV.  ATTITUDE  OF  CRITICISM  TO  "REVELATION." 

Argument  that  contrast  of  supernatural  and  non-supernatural  is 

less  important  than  it  seems. 

Professor  W.  R.  Smith  on  high  views  of  the  "  modern"  school. 
Defects  of  this  view  of  Israel's  religion. 
Ambiguity  in  use  of  word  "  revelation." 
Admission  of  "providential  guidance." 
"Revelation"  in  sense  of  psychological  development 
Dilemma   here  that  revelation  leads  to  belief  in  supernatural, 

and  in  direct  communications  of  God  to  man. 
Christ  the  touchstone  of  the  supernatural  for  faith. 
That  view  of  revelation  alone  adequate  which  culminates  in 

His  Person  and  redemption. 
Sketch  of  course  of  subsequent  discussion. 

APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  I 
CRUCIAL  POINTS  IN  THE  CRITICAL  THEORY. —  Pp.  25,  26. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM  ITS  OWN  POINT  OF 
VIEW.— Pp.  27-51. 

Place  of  Old  Testament  in  the  economy  of  revelation.     Tendency  of  purely 

critical  study  to  obscure  view  of  this. 
Right  of  Old  Testament  to  be  heard  for  itself. 
I.  THE  ORGANIC  UNITY  OF  THE  HOOK. 
The  Bible  a  unity. 

Many  books,  but  structurally  one. 


CONTENTS  xxi 

Illustration  by  contrast :  "book-religion*.* 

No  unity  in  ethnic  Scriptures  (Koran,  etc.). 
The  Bible  has  an  organic  character. 

Marked  by  plan,  purpose,  progress. 

Unity  grows  out  of  religion  and  history. 

II.  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THB  NEW. 
The  Bible  in  two  divisions. 
The  second  the  counterpart  and  completion  of  the  first 

The  "  Servant "  of  Isa.  liii. :  fulfilment  in  Christ 
Religion  of  Israel  a  religion  of  hope. 

Anticipation  of  better  economy. 
The  Messianic  idea. 
New  Testament  realises  hopes  and  promises  of  the  Old. 

This  relation  inward  and  vital. 

III.  TELF.OLOOICAL  CHARACTER  OP  THE  HISTORY. 

History  dominated  by  idea  of  purpose. 
Sketch  of  development — primitive  and  patriarchal  history. 
Mosaic  and  later  history. 
History  viewed  retrogressively. 
UniqueneM  of  this. 

IV.  UMIQVK  IDEAS  OF  THE  RELWIOIT. 

The  uniqueness  generally  acknowledged. 
1.  Negative  side — absence  of  features  found  in  other  religions. 

Magir,  nature-superstitions,  etc. 
S.  furtive  side — fundamental  ideas  of  Israel's  religion. 

(1)  Monotheism  of  religion. 
Peculiar  to  Israel. 

O[>l'<>.-,ite  tendency  in  other  religions. 
Underlies  the  whole  of  Old  Testament 

(2)  Developing  purpose  of  grace. 
Sin  and  grace  in  Scripture. 

The  Bible  a  "  history  of  redemption." 
Found  in  no  other  religion. 

(8)  Indissoluble  relation  between  religion  and  morality. 
General  relations  of  religion  and  morality. 
Religion  of  Israel  dominated  by  this  idea. 
God  as  the  Holy  One. 

Union  of  religion  and  morality  in  psalms  and  prophets. 
Such  a  religion  not  man-originated, 

V.  CLAIM  TO  AN  ORIGIN  IN  RF.VELATION. 

Modern  substitution  of  psychology  for  revelation. 
Biblical  point  of  view— "Thus  saith  Jehovah." 

Revelation  of  God  in  act  and  word. 

The  Israelite  conscious  of  being  possessor  and  guardian  of  a  special 
revelation. 


xxii  CONTENTS 

Objection— all  religions  claim  similar  origin. 

Reply — No  religion  has  a  story  of  its  beginnings  like  Israel's. 

(1)  Monotheism  not  of  natural  origin. 

Only  three  monotheistic  religions  in  world  :  Judaism,  Chris- 
tianity, and  Mohammedanism  derived  from  other  two. 

(2)  Ethical  character  of  Israel's  religion  not  of  natural  origin. 
Contrast  with  Egyptian  religion. 

Claim  to  revelation  justified. 

VI.  REVELATION  IN  RELATION  TO  ITS  RECORD. 

If  revelation  there,  questions  about  date  and  placing  of  books  of 

minor  importance. 

If  revelation  given — reasonable  to  expect  a  record. 
Character  of  Bible  shows  it  is  such  a  record. 
Qualities  of  Scripture  a  proof  of  inspiration. 
Bible  realises  its  own  tests  of  inspiration. 

VII.  RELATION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  TO  CHRIST. 
Christ  the  goal  of  Old  Testament  revelation. 
The  illuminating  light  in  its  study. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— I.  THE 
HISTORY :  ARGUMENT  FROM  CRITICAL  PREMISES.  — 
Pp.  53-81. 

Does  scientific  criticism  overthrow  the  history  of  the  Old  Testament  T 
Provisional  adoption  of  critical  standpoint. 

I.  CRITICAL  ASSAULT  ON  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY. 
Views  of  radical  critics  :  denial  of  historicity. 

Patriarchal  and  Mosaic  periods. 

Later  historical  books. 
Moderate  critical  positions. 
Grounds  of  denial. 

Late  date  of  history. 

Rudimentary  state  of  belief. 

Contradictions,  etc. 

II.  IOKORINO  OF  TELEOLOGICAL  ELEMENT  IN  THE  HISTORY. 
Non-recognition  by  radical  school. 
Recognition  by  believing  critics. 
Explanation  of  appearance  of  teleology — 
Reading  back  of  prophetic  ideas. 


CONTENTS  xxiii 

Refutation  of  this : — 

1.  Teleological  element  not  on  turfaee  of  history,  but  enters  into 

it*  substance. 

2.  Where  is  the  mind  capable  of  inventing  it  t 

III.  CKF.DIBILITY  or  HISTORY  OK  PREMISES  OF  CRITICAL  THEORY. 

Critical  theory  of  the  Hexateuch. 
The  Documents  JEDP. 
Consideration  confined  to  J  and  E. 

Theories  of  age  (ninth  or  eighth  century),  authorship,  relations, 
etc. 

1.  Main  result  from  this  theory — 

J  and  E  antecede  written  prophecy. 
Wavering  of  critics. 

2.  Inferences : — 

(1)  Teleological  character  an  integral  part  of  the  tradition. 
Not  due  to  prophetic  manipulation. 

(2)  Tradition  has  already  developed  and  settled  form. 
Contrast  with  popular  legend. 

(8)  Critical  theory  assumes  two  histories. 

Independent,  yet  in  substance  resembling  and  parallel 
Hence  (1)  check  on  free  invention  ;  (2)  proof  of  settled 
character  of  tradition. 

IV.  STEPPING-STONES  TO  EARLIRR  DATE  or  TRADITION. 

1.  Tradition  must  antedate  division  of  kingdom. 
Age  of  Solomon,  David,  Samuel. 

2.  Critical  dates  do  not  fix  terminus  a  quo. 
Critical  support  for  earlier  date. 

No  good  reason  for  putting  late. 

3.  Hypothesis  of  earlier  records. 

(1)  Support  from  history  of  language. 

J  and  E  from  "golden  age  of  literature.1* 
Necessity  of  previous  cultivation. 

(2)  Preceding  development  of  literature. 
Result*  as  to  J  and  E. 

(3)  Critical  admission  of  earlier  records. 

V.  CORROHORATIVK  EVIDENCE  OP  EARLY  DATE  OP  SOURCES. 

1.  Now  light  cost  by  discovery  of  age  and  use  of  writing,  an<i 

development  of  literature. 
Revolution  in  ideas :  Babylonia,  Egypt,  Canaan,  etc. 

2.  Corroborations  of  data  of  history. 

Genesis  xiv. ;  Genesis  z. ;  life  of  Joseph,  etc. 

3.  Witness  of  Old  Testament  to  early  use  of  writing  in  Israel. 


xxiv  CONTENTS 


CHAPTEK  IV 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— I.  THE 
HISTORY  :  COUNTER-THEORIES  TESTED.—^.  83-116. 

Critical  reconstruction  of  the  history. 

I.  RIVAL  CONSTRUCTIONS  AS  DEPENDENT  ON  THEIR  PRESUPPOSITIONS 
The  critical  presupposition  and  its  results. 
Naturalness  of  the  Biblical  view  on  its  own  presuppositions. 
Meaning  of  "history"  in  the  Bible. 
Patriarchal  history  as  carefully  preserved  tradition. 

II.  THEORY  THAT  PATRIARCHS  WERE  NOT  INDIVIDUALS,  BUT  "PER- 
SONIFICATIONS." 
Prevalence  of  this  theory :  its  grounds. 

1.  Names  of  the  patriarchs  not  individual,  but  tribal. 
This  only  partially  true :  examination  of  names. 
Difficulties  in  case  of  Abraham. 

2.  Forms  of  Scripture  genealogies. 
Ethnographic  genealogies  (Genesis  x.). 
Bnt  family  genealogies  also. 

No  biographies  of  "Mizraim,"  "Ludim,"  etc. 
8.  Assumed  law  of  growth  of  societies. 

Views  of  Stade,  etc. 

Lack  of  proof  of  this  "  law." 

Maine  on  Patriarchal  theory  of  Society. 
Peculiarity  of  call  and  destiny  in  Israel. 
Patriarchs  loth  persons  and  progenitors. 

III.  WITNESS  OF  ISRAEL'S  NATIONAL  CONSCIOUSNESS  :  THE  PATRIARCHS. 

Argument  as  to  religion  postponed. 
Dillmann  on  patriarchal  religion. 
Minimising  of  later  testimony  to  patriarchs. 

1.  Application  of  critical  method  to  prophetic  passages. 

H.  P.  Smith  ;  Wellhausen. 
Disproof  of  their  assertions. 

2.  Positive  evidence  in  later  literature— 

The  prophets. 
The  JE  history. 
Book  of  Deuteronomy. 

IV.  MOSES  AND  THE  EXODUS. 

1.  Belittling  of  testimony  to  Moses  as  lawgiver. 
Carpenter  on  prophetic  references. 
Moses  in  Book  of  Deuteronomy. 
In  JE  history. 
History  to  be  taken  as  a     hole. 


CONTENTS  xxv 

3.  The  Exodus  ami  Red  Sea  deliverance. 

If  ever  happened,  impossible  should  he  forgotten. 

Indelibility  of  national  recollection. 
Testimony  of  literature. 

Song  of  Miriam  ;  historical  books ;  prophets, 

Kautzach  on  historicity  of  Exodus. 
No  tenable  rival  theory. 

Unexplained  how  Israelites  did  leave  Egypt. 

"  Escape  "  hypothesis  impossible. 

V.   INTKKNAL  CHARACTER  or  NARRATIVES  A  GUARANTEE  FOB  HIS- 
TORICITY. 

Value  of  internal  evidence  of  truthfulness. 
Application  to  patriarchal  history. 

1.  Credibility  of  narratives  as  a  whole. 

Dr.  Driver's  testimony. 

Sobriety  and  spariugness  of  miracle  in  Genesis. 

Contrast  with  period  of  Exodus. 

2.  Unity  of  picture  of  patriarchs  in  different  sources. 

Wellhausen's  statements  on  this  point. 
Interdependence  of  sources. 

Illustrations  from  narrative. 

8.  Character  of  Abraham  a  guarantee  of  historicity. 
General  grandeur  of  character. 
His  place  in  revelation. 
Contrast  with  later  fables. 

VI.  FIDELITY  OF  NARRATIVES  TO  PATRIARCHAL  CONDITIONS. 
Primitive  character  and  simplicity  of  ideas. 

1.  History  moves  in  primitive  conditions. 

Free  life  of  patriarchs :  primitive  ideas. 
Alleged  mirroring  of  later  political  events. 
Gunkel  in  disproof  of  this. 

2.  Primitive  character  of  religious  ideas  and/orm*  of  worship. 
Prayer  and  sacrifice  ;  burnt  offering,  etc. 

Objective  character  of  revelation. 

The  theophany  :  "Angel  of  Jehovah." 

Undeveloped  character  of  doctrine  of  angels. 

But  "Angel    of  Jehovah"   peculiar  form  of   revelation    in 
earliest  age. 

Identification  with  Jehovah. 

8.  Idea  of  God  appropriate  to  this  stage  of  revelation. 
The  names  of  God  in  Genesis  :  El,  Elohim,  El  ShaddsL 

Contrast  with  name  "Jehovah." 

Use  of  Jehovah  in  Genesis. 
The  divine  character  and  attributes. 

Absence  of  terms  "holy,"  "righteousness,"  "wrath,"  ete. 


xxvi  CONTENTS 

4.  Ethical  conceptions  of  the  patriarchs  mark  lower  stage. 

Marriage  of  sisters,  etc. 

Weaker  sense  of  sin. 

Contrast  with  prophets. 

Advance  in   Book  of   Exodus    in  both  religious  and   ethical 
conceptions. 

Grander  scale  of  history  in  this  book  ;  deeper  ideas,  etc. 

Greatness  of  Mosaic  era. 

Vividness  of  narratives. 
Unity  of  representation  of  Moses  and  Aaron. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AS  AFFECTED  RY  CRITICISM— II.  RE- 
LIGION AND  INSTITUTIONS:  GOD  AND  HIS  WORSHIP.— 
Pp.  117-147. 

Critical  treatment  of  problems  of  religion. 

I.  FATTLT  OF  THE  CRITICAL  METHOD. 

Rejection  of  history  we  have,  and  substitution  for  it  of  imaginary 

history. 

E.g.,  Budde  on  Yahweh  ;  his  admissions. 
A  priori  rejection  of  Second  Commandment. 
Failure  of  criticism  to  abide  by  its  own  assumptions. 

E.g.,  Jephthah  ;  David  ;  golden  calf,  etc. 
More  systematic  inquiry. 

II.  EARLY  ISRAELITISH  MONOTHEISM. 

1.  Biblical  representation — Israel  from  first  monotheistic. 

Inability  of  people  to  maintain  this  standpoint. 

Belief  in  inferior  gods. 
Religion  itself  based  on  belief  in  one  true  God. 

Genesis  a  monotheistic  book. 

Jehovah  in  Exodus  a  supreme  God. 
This  not  contradicted  by  "anthropomorphisms." 

2.  Views  of  evolutionary  critical  school. 
Early  monotheism  rejected. 
Religion  begins  with  polytheism. 

Yahweh  a  tribal  God. 
Theories  of  early  religion  in  Israel  :— 
Moloch  theory  (Kuenen). 
Polydetnonism  (Kautzsch). 
Kenite  theory  (Budde). 
Superstitious  elements  ;  fetishism,  etc. 


CONTENTS 

Grounds  of  critical  theory : — 

(1)  Old  Testament  conception  of  God  too  derated  for  patriarchal 

and  Mosaic  tiroes. 

Alleged  dependence  of  monotheism  on  ideas  of  the  world 
and  of  humanity. 

Fallacy  of  this  ;  Israel  early  in  contact  with  high  civilisa- 
tions. 

High  views  of  God  in  older  religions. 

Views  of  other  Old  Testament  scholars. 

Witness  of  Decalogue. 

(2)  Examination  of  Kenite  theory. 
Yahweh  a  new  god  to  Israel. 

The  storm-god  of  Sinai. 
Moses  among  Kenites — Song  of  Deborah. 
Reply  :  Jehovah  the  God  of  the  fathers. 
Yahweh  not  a  Kenite  deity. 
Not  proved  by  Song  of  Deborah. 
Stade's  admissions  of  universality  of  Tahweh. 
Sublimity  of  Song  of  Deborah. 
(8)  Proof  from  special  passages : — 

Jephthah's  words  on  Chemosh — 

Not  conclusive  for  Israelitish  view. 
David    "driven"    from   Jehovah's  inheritance  —  Well- 

hausen,  etc. 

No  idea  of  serving  gods  other  than  Jehovah  anywhere. 
Comparison  with  Deuteronomy. 
"  Ethical  monotheism  "  not  a  creation  of  the  prophets. 
Prophets  all  assume  knowledge  of  one  true  God. 

III.  EARLY  IBRAELITISH  WORSHIP. 

Theories  of  fetishism,  animism,  ancestor-worship,  etc. 
Contrast  with  Biblical  view. 

Patriarchal  and  Mosaic  periods. 
Bible  on  face  of  it  does  not  support  these  theories. 
Examination  of  particulars  : — 

1.  Theory  of  sanctuaries. 

Biblical  view  of  origin  of  sanctuaries  (Bethel,  etc.). 
Critical  view — old  Canaanitish  shrines. 

Patriarchal  legends  an  aftergrowth. 

Proof  only  by  rejection  of  Biblical  histories. 

2.  Aneettor  worship. 

Stade's  theory  and  "  proofs." 

"Graves"  of  patriarchs,  etc. 

Mourning  customs,  etc. 
Bndde  and  Addis  on  ancestor-worship. 
Baselessness  of  theory. 


xxviii  CONTENTS 

8.  Animism — sacred  wells  and  trees. 

"  Wells"  in  patriarchal  history — but  for  water. 
"  Trees  " — but  God  not  thought  of  as  in  them. 

W.  B.  Smith  on  sacred  trees. 
"  Asherahs" — but  idolatrous. 

4.  Fetishism  and  stone-uoorship. 
' '  Ark  "  alleged  to  be  fetish. 

Sacred  stones  in  ark  (meteorites). 
H.  P.  Smith,  etc. 
Sacred  "pillars"  (mafcebai). 
Jacob  at  Bethel. 

No  class  of  stones  called  "  Bethels.* 
God  not  thought  of  as  in  stone. 
Memorial  pillars  (Dillmann,  etc.). 
The  prophets  and  matftbas. 

5.  Totemism. 

Alleged  belief  in  descent  of  tribes  from  animals. 

Animal  names,  etc. 

Bearings  on  sacrifice. 
Theory  not  generally  accepted. 

6.  Human  sacrifice. 
Connection  with  Moloch  theory. 

Other  evidences  secondary. 
Case  of  daughter  of  Jephthah. 

Interpretation  of  incident. 

No  proof  of  general  custom. 

Attitude  of  prophets  to  human  sacrifice. 
IV.  IMAGE-WORSHIP  IN  ISRAEL. 

Second  Commandment  denied  to  Moses. 
Positive  assertion  of  worship  of  Yahweh  by  images. 
Alleged  antiquity  of  bull-worship. 
Examination  of  evidence  : — 

1.  No  evidence  in  older  history. 

Not  in  Genesis — case  of  "  teraphim." 
Not  in  Mosaic  history — 

Golden  calf  a  breach  of  covenant. 

2.  State  of  religion  under  Judges. 
Lapse  into  Canaanitish  idolatry. 

Little  evidence  of  image-worship  of  Jehovah. 
Case  of  Gideon — 

Not  proved  that  his  "ephod"  was  an  image  of  Jehovah. 

No  proof  that  it  was  image  of  a  bull. 

No  proof  that  bull-worship  was  general. 
Case  of  Micah  and  Danites. 

Real  instance  of  idolatrous  worship  of  Jehovah. 

Not  proof  of  rule  in  Israel. 

Micah  at  first  without  images. 


CONTENTS 

8.  Calf-worship  of  Northern  Kingdom. 
Assumed  revival  of  ancient  usage. 

But  why  need  "  revival  "  t 
Theory  disproved  by  nilrnce  of  earlier  history. 

No  trace  in  age  of  Samuel  or  David. 

Absence  of  image  in  temple. 
Alleged  absence  of  protest  in  prophet*. 

Strong  protest  in  Hoeea. 

But  also  in  Amos. 

Elijah's  conflict  with  "  Baal-worship  "—not  with  calves. 

Incredibility  of  his  approval  of  calf- worship. 

Threatens  Ahab  with  doom  of  Jeroboam. 
Conclusion — Biblical  view  still  valid. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— II.  RE- 
LIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS:  ARK,  TABERNACLE,  PRIEST- 
HOOD,  ETC.— Pp.  149-180. 

Dependence  of  criticism  on  view  taken  of  laws  and  institutions. 
I.  GENERAL  POSITION  or  MOSES  AS  LAWGIVER. 
Difficulty  of  critics  on  this  point. 

Name  of  Moses  given  to  all  laws,  yet  all  laws  withheld  from  him. 
1.  Relation  of  Moses  to  Decaloyue  and  Book  of  Covenant. 
Grounds  of  denial  of  Decalogue  to  Moses. 
So-called  second  Decalogue  in  Ex.  xxxiv. 
Baselessness  of  this. 
Decalogue  gives  probability  to  Mosaic  origin  of  laws  in  Book 

of  Covenant. 
Antecedent  probability  of  legislation. 

II.  THE  SACRIFICIAL  SY.-I  KM  ANI>  RITUAL  LAW. 

Denial  of  belief  in  Mosaic  or  divine  origin  of  sacrificial  law  before 
exile. 

1.  Assertion  that  P  writer  "knows  nothing"  of  sacrifice  before  Moses. 

2.  Sacrifice  in  prophetic  age  not  merely  "  traditional  usage." 
8.  Prophetic  denunciations  of  outward  ritual. 

Real  meaning  of  these. 

Recognition  of  divine  sanction  of  ordinances. 
4.  Admissions  of  Kuenen,  Smend,  etc. 
Incredible    that,   in    settling    constitution,   MUMS    should  give  no 

religious  ordinances. 
Special  institutions. 


xxx  CONTENTS 

III.  THE  SACRED  ARK. 

Critical  theory  of  the  ark  ;  contradicted  by  facts. 

1.  The  making  of  the  ark. 

An  old  ark  admitted  :  alleged  JE  account  of  making. 
Agreement  of  Deut.  x.  1-5  with  P  account. 

2.  Subsequent  history  of  the  ark. 
Notices  regarding  name,  structure,  uses. 
These  not  discrepant  with  P. 

The  ark  aud  Levites  :  H.  P.  Smith. 

3.  Relation  of  ark  to  Solomonic  temple. 
Solomonic  ark  was  the  old  ark. 

P's  description,  if  taken  from  Solomonic  ark,  would  agree  with 

old  ark. 
Neglect  of  ark  in  pre-Davidic  time  :  lesson  of  this. 

IV.  THE  TABERNACLE. 

Initial  objection  to  splendour  of  tabernacle. 

1.  Admission  that  tabernacle  of  some  kind  existed. 

Nature  of  tabernacle  :  Grafs  views. 
Alleged  distinction  from  tabernacle  of  the  law. 
The  "  tent  of  meeting"  in  JE— Ex.  xxxiii.  7. 
Supposed  contrasts. 

2.  Place  of  the  tabernacle. 

View  that  JE  tent  outside  of  camp ;  P  tabernacle  in  midst  of 

camp. 

Examination  of  cases  :  Num.  xi.,  xii. 
Indications  that  JE  tabernacle  also  within  the  camp. 

3.  Use  of  the  tabernacle. 

View  that  JE  tent  a  place  of  revelation  ;  P  tabernacle  a  place  of 

worship. 

But  (1)  P  tabernacle  also  a  place  of  revelation. 
Resemblances  of  JE  and  P  tabernacles. 

(2)  And  JE  tabernacle  a  place  of  worship. 
Notices  till  time  of  Judges. 
The  ark  at  Shiloh  :  centre  for  "all  Israel." 
Objection  that  Shiloh  sanctuary  a  "temple" — still,  however,  a 

"tent." 
Also  that  Samuel  slept  in  chamber  of  ark. 

Groundlessness  of  this. 
The  Levitical  dues. 
Subsequent  fortunes  of  tabernacle. 

V.  TJIK  UNITY  OF  THE  SANCTUARY. 

Wellhausen  on  centralisation  of  cnltus  in  Deuteronomy. 

Alleged  relation  to  Ex.  xx.  24  (JE)  and  to  P. 
Need  of  more  careful  scrutiny  of  facts. 


CONTENTS  xxxi 

1.  The  fundamental  law  in  Ex.  zz.  24. 
Professor  W.  R.  Smith  on  freedom  of  worship. 
Law  does  not  give  unrestricted  liberty. 

"Recording"  of  Ood'a  name  covers  cases  of  special  revelation 
(Gideon,  Hanoah,  etc.). 

2.  Unity  of  sanctuary  the  ideal  for  Israel  from  beginning. 

"An  altar"  in  fundamental  law. 

One  "  house  of  God  "  in  Book  of  Covenant. 

One  sanctuary  in  wilderness, 

The  altar  Ed  in  Josh.  zxii. 

Worship  at  one  centre  in  Judges. 

3.  Deuteronomy  does  not  demand  immediate  realisation  of  the  law 

of  unity. 

Postponement  of  full  realisation  till  land  had  "  rest." 
Settled  state  first  with  David  and  Solomon. 

4.  Allowance  necessary  for  irregularities  in  times  of  unsettlement 

and  disorganisation. 
Period  of  confusion  specially  after  capture  of  ark — "a  religious 

interregnum." 

Samuel's  relation  to  worship. 
Spirit  of  law  above  its  letter. 

5.  Religions  attitude  to  "  high  places." 
Paucity  of  early  notices. 

Worship  till  Solomon  mainly  to  Jehovah. 
Idolatry  in  later  reigns. 
Attitude  of  prophets  to  "high  places." 
VI.  THE  AAROMC  PRIEHTHOOD  AND  TUB  LKVITKS. 

A  Levitical  priesthood  attested,  but  further  questions. 

1.  Was  the  priesthood  Aaronit  t 
Wellhausen's  theo risings  on  tribe  of  Levi. 

Denial  of  Aaronic  "  high  priest "  before  exile. 
Testimony  to  Aaronic  priesthood— Aaron  to  Eli. 
"  High  priest"  seldom  in  Priestly  Code. 

2.  Priests  and  Levitts. 

Alleged  conflict  of  PC  with  Deuteronomy  and  early  practice. 
A  relative  contrast  granted. 

(1)  Examination  of  phraseology. 

"The  priests  the  Levites  "  in  earlier  history. 

"  Priests  and  Levitas  "  not  in  law. 

"  Levitas  "  used  also  in  wide  sense  in  P. 

"  Sons  of  Aaron  "  in  PC  not  a  universal  designation,  and 

disap|ieara  later. 

Change  in  designation  with  choice  of  tribe  of  Levi. 
Nomenclature  follows  fact. 

(2)  Functions  of  priesthood  attributed  to  whole  tribt  of  Levi 

in  Deuteronomy. 
Even  Urim  and  Thummim  of  priesthood. 


xxxii  CONTENTS 

Nevertheless  traces  of  distinction  of  orders. 
All  "  Levites"  not  "  priests." 
Aaronic  priesthood  recognised. 
Priests  and  Levites  not  identical  in  Deut.  zviii.  1-8. 
Terms  for  service  applicable  to  both  classes. 
(8)  Position  of  Levitts  in  Deuteronomy  and  in  history. 
Alleged  contradiction  with  PC. 
Legal    provision    for    Levites,     however,     not     ignored    in 

Deuteronomy. 
Needy  condition  of  Levites  in  accordance  with  situation  before 

settled  conditions. 
Levites  in  later  times. 
(4)  Scant  notices  of  Levites  in  history. 
Samuel  as  Levite. 
Wellhausen  and  W.  E.  Smith  on  Samuel  as  "priest." 

Groundlessness  of  this  view — (1)  the  ephod ;  (2)  the  mantle. 

APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  VI 

PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES  (Dr.    Driver  on   "ministering"  and   "standing" 
before  Jehovah).— Pp.  191,  192. 


DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES  OF  THE  CRITICAL 
HYPOTHESIS:  I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS.—^.  198-239. 

New  problem — validity  of  critical  theory  of  documents. 
Criticism  brings  to  light  real  phenomena. 

I.  STADIA  OF  THE  CRITICAL  DEVELOPMENT. 

1.  Astruc:  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  documents. 

2.  Eichhom  :  literary  peculiarities  in  documents. 
8.  De  Wette :  problem  of  Deuteronomy. 

4.  Hupfeld :  separation  of  2nd  Elohist. 
6.  The  Qraf  revolution  :  the  law  post-exilian. 
Theories  of  relation  of  sources. 

Fragmentary — supplementary— documentary. 

II.  DIFFICULTIES  OF  THE  CRITICAL  HYPOTHESIS  IN  GENERAL. 
Points  of  agreement  among  critics. 
Wide  divergences  in  detail. 

Eantzsch  and  Kuenen  on  lack  of  agreement. 
Justification  of  doubts  as  to  soundness  of  principles. 


CONTENTS  xxxiii 

1.  Cm/Kelt  of  opinion  in  critical  school*. 
Hypothetical  character  of  JEDP. 

Lack  of  agreement  as  to  dates,  relations,  priority. 

2.  Excessive  multiplication  of  sources. 

Serial  Js,  Es,  Ps,  Ba. 

This  a  necessity  of  theory  (Ptolemaio  epicycles). 
Bnt  creates  insoluble  complications. 
S.  Resolution  o/JEP,  etc.,  into  "schools." 

Impossibility  of  longer  insisting  on  minute  criteria. 
Effect  on  questions  of  date. 
Contradicted  by  unity  of  book. 

HI.  SPECIAL  PROBLEMS  OF  JE :  PLACE  OF  ORIGIN  AND  Exrar. 

1.  Place  of  origin,  with  bearings  on  age. 

E  Ephraimitio  (interest  in  sacred  places,  etc.) — J  Judean. 
Grounds  inadequate  for  this  distinction. 

(1)  J  also  placed  by  leading  critics  in  Northern  Israel. 

(2)  False  assumptions  of  motive. 

Gunkel  and  Kuenen  deny  party-tendency.  « 

(8)  Narratives  do  not  bear  out  preference  for  North  and  South. 

J  interested  in  Northern  localities  ;  E  in  South. 

Critics  on  "  tone  "  of  E. 
(4)  Strained  interpretation  of  incident*. 
Bethel,  Beersheba,  etc. 

2.  Extent  of  documents. 

Admitted  difficulty  in  distinction  after  Genesis. 
Are  J  and  E  found  in  Judges,  Samuel,  etc.  f 
Case  of  Joshua :  PenlaUuch  or  HeiaUwh  t 
Cornill,  etc.,  on  distinctness  of  Joshua. 
Differences  in  language,  structure,  etc. 

Wellhausen,  etc. ,  deny  J  in  Joshua. 

Difficulties  with  E  and  P. 

Stylistic  difficulties. 

Samaritan  Joshua  :  balance  against  Hexatench. 

IV.  ARE  J  AND  E  Two  OR  ONE!    DIFFICULTIES  OF  SEPARATION. 

1.  No  proof  that  E  ever  was  distinct  document. 

Intermittent,  fragmentary  character  of  E. 

2.  Unity  supported  by  thoroughly  parallel  character  of  narratives. 

Critical  testimonies  on  parallelism. 

3.  Stylistic  resemblance  of  J  and  E. 

Dr.  Driver  on  resemblance. 

4.  Fusion  and  interrelation  of  narratives. 

Union  "  bewilderingly  close." 
Narratives  closely  interconnected. 
The  "omission"  theory. 
t 


xxxiv  CONTENTS 

5.   Violent  expedients  needed  to  make  hypothesis  workable. 
Place  and  functions  of  "redactor." 
Peculiarities  of  redactor. 

V.  TUB  PUOBLEM  OF  THB  DIVINE  NAMES  IN  J  AND  E. 

1.  A  see  rtainment  of  fact*. 

These  less  simple  than  supposed. 

(1)  "  Elohim  "  in  admitted  J  passages. 

(2)  "  Jehovah  "  in  E  passages. 

(3)  Kuenen's  admissions  on  discrimination. 

2.  Explanation  of  facts. 

(1)  Theory  of  distinct  sources  loaded  with  difficulties. 
Older  sources  not  denied,  but  these  not  J  and  E. 

(2)  Hypothesis  of  discrimination :  lias  true  elements  in  it 
Cessation  of  "  Elohim  "  in  E  with  Exodus  iii. 
Difficulties  of  critical  explanation. 

Revelation  of  Jehovah   in  Exodus  vi. — true  meaning  of 

passage. 
P  avoids   "Jehovah"  till    Exodus  vi  ;    two  stages  of 

revelation. 
Explanation  inadequate  for  JE. 

(3)  Possibility  of  change  in  text. 

Examples  of  this  ;  E's  usage  after  Exodus  iii. 
Double  names  in  Genesis  ii.,  iii. 
Usage  of  LXX  in  Genesis. 
Outstanding  case  :  phenomena  of  Psalter. 
Klostermann's  theory  of  Jehovistic  and  Elohistic  recensions 
of  one  work. 

VI.  LINGUISTIC  AND  OTHEB  ALLEGED  GBOUNDS  FOB  SEPABATION. 

Illusory  character  of  these. 

1.  Linguistic  peculiarities. 
Typical  cases  examined. 

2.  Mode  of  representation  in  E. 
The  "  dream  "  criterion — 
Angel  calling  "out  of  heaven." 

Partition  tested  by  Gen.  xxii.  and  Gen.  xxviii.  10  ff. 
Unity  of  narratives. 
Significant  use  of  divine  names. 
8.   ' '  Duplicate  "  narratives. 

General  principles  affecting  these. 

Bethel — Joseph — Hagar,  etc. 
Test  case  :  denial  of  wives  by  Abraham  and  Isaac. 

(1)  Three  narratives — two  in  J. 
Critical  disintegration  processes. 

(2)  Use  of  divine  names :  exaggerations,  etc. 
Difficulties  of  analysis. 


CONTENTS  xxxv 

(8)  Difference*  in  narrative*. 

Probably  represent  genuinely  distinct  traditions. 
Abraham's  action  a  result  of  settled  policy. 
Later  narrative  refers  to  earlier. 

APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  VII 
THE  HISTORICITY  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA.—./^.  240-243. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES  OF  THE  CRITICAL  HYPO- 
THESIS :  THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY.—^.  245-284. 

Place  of  Deuteronomy  in  critical  theory. 

L  STATE  or  THE  QUESTION  AND  GENERAL  VIEW. 
Contents  of  Deuteronomy. 
Critical  theory  of  origin  :  age  of  Josiah. 
Consequences  of  view  of  late  date. 
Doubts  as  to  soundness  of  critical  view— 

From  course  of  criticism  itself. 

From  enormous  difficulties  of  hypothesis. 

II.  UNITY  AND  STYLE  OF  DEUTERONOMY. 

1.  Unity  of  thought  and  style  in  the  book. 

Allowance  for  redaction. 

Older  critics  held  "unity  "  as  indubitable. 
Critical  disintegration  of  the  book. 

Conflicting  views:   Wellhausen,    Kuenen,   Carpenter,  etc. 

a  "dissolving  view." 
Dr.  Driver  on  unity  of  style. 

2.  Relation  of  ityie  to  that  of  other  Pentateuch  source*. 
Delitzsch  on  style  of  Moses — "  Jehovistic-Deuteronomic." 
Affinities  with  Deuteronomy  in  P  (Lev.  zxvi.,  etc.). 
Affinities  of  Deuteronomy  with  JE. 

Rook  of  Covenant ;  Genesis,  etc. 
Affinities  with  Deuteronomy  in  later  books. 

"  Pre-Deuteronomic  "  passages. 
Decrease  of  Deuteronomic  influence  as  history  advances. 

III.    DlKKlUULTIE*  OF  CRITICAL  THEORY  ON   AoE   AND  ORIGIN. 

Presuppositions  of  criticism  on  date. 

Relation  to  age  of  JE. 
1.  The  finding  of  "  tht  book  of  tlu  law  "  in  Jonah's  reign. 

Narrative  of  discovery. 


xxxvi  CONTENTS 

(1)  Plainly  believed  to  be  discovery  of  an  old  book. 

All  concerned  believed  book  to  be  Mosaic. 
Difficulties  of  opposite  hypothesis. 

(2)  Theory  of  "  fraud  "  in  production  of  the  book. 

This  the  view  of  leading  critics  (Wellhausen,  etc.). 
Supposition  morally  condemnable  and  historically  un- 
tenable. 

(3)  Assumed  earlier  date  under  Manasseh  or  Hezekiah. 

Disadvantages  of  this  view ;  guiding  principle  lost — 
Euenen's  "fatal"  objection. 

(4)  Did  the  book  originate  with  prophets  or  priests  1 

Priests  (Euenen) ;  prophets  (Eautzsch,  etc.). 
Difficulties  of  both  views. 

2.  Testimony  of  book  to  its  own  origin. 
Apparently  clear  claim  to  Mosaic  authorship. 

Not  whole  Pentateuch. 

But  not  code  (chaps,  xii.-xxvi.)  only. 

Theory  of  a  "free  reproduction"  of  written  discourses  of  Moses 
(Delitzsch,  etc.). 

Admissibility  of  this  view. 

But— Citibonot 

If  Moses  wrote,  a  literary  "double"  not  called  for. 

Literary  capabilities  of  Moses. 

Real  ground  of  objection — belief  in  non-historicity  of  Mosaic 
period. 

3.  Internal  character  of  book. 
Minimising  of  difficulties  here. 

Book  and  history  do  not  fit  each  other. 

(1)  Josiah    not  moved    primarily    by   idea    of  centralising 

worship. 

His  reformation  directed  against  idolatry. 
Deuteronomy  not  aimed  directly  at  "  high  places." 
Even  in  Deuteronomy  centralisation  of  worship  not  an 

all-dominating  idea. 

(2)  Problem  of  miscellaneous  laws  in  a  book  composed  to 

effect  reform  of  worship. 

Incongruity  and  irrelevancy  of  many  of  the  laws. 
Israel  an  unbroken  unity. 
Obsolete  and  unsuitable  laws. 
Deuteronomic  law  of  death  for  idolatry  not  put  in  force 

by  Josiah. 
Theory  of  Levites  as  "  disestablished  priests." 

IV.  CEITICAL  REASONS  FOE  LATE  DATING  OF  THE  BOOK  :  QUESTION 

OF  VALIDITY  OF  THESE. 

Real  ground  with  many  :  altered  view  of  Moses  and  his  age. 
Importance  of  question  of  date :  results  for  JE  and  P. 


CONTENTS  xxxvii 

1.  Extensive  rancetsians  of  critical  writers  as  to  Mosaic  basis. 
Oettli  and  Driver  on  relation  to  older  laws. 

Only  "  real  innovation  "  the  centralisation  of  worship  (Keuss). 
This  the  fundamental  pillar  of  hypothesis. 
Results  of  previous  investigations  on  the  point. 

2.  Subordinate  importance  of  other  arguments. 

(1)  Alleged  discrepancies  in  laws. 

Former  results  on  Aaronic  priesthood  and  Levites. 
Reproduction  of  laws  of  Book  of  Covenant. 
Freedom  in  reiteration  and  enforcement. 
Tithe-laws  as  illustration  of  discrepancies. 

Apparent  conflict  with  Numbers. 

But  law  of  Numbers  also  recognised. 

Possible  lines  of  solution. 

Difficulties  of  critical  alternative. 
Minor  discrepancies. 

(2)  Alleged  historical  discrepancies. 

Inconsistencies  in  book  itself :  critical  explanations  of  these. 
Admitted  general  fidelity  to  J  E  history. 
Is  P  also  used  T    Critical  denial. 

Instances  proving  a  certain  use. 
Examples  of  "  contradictions  "  : — 

Appointment  of  judges  :  sending  the  spies. 

Ground  and  time  of  prohibition  to  Moses  to  enter  Canaan. 

Joshua  and  the  mission  of  the  spies. 

Dathan  and  Abiram  (Korah  omitted). 

Aaron's  death. 

Cities  of  refuge. 
(8)  Expressions  thought  to  imply  post-Mosaic  date. 

E.g.,  "  Other  side  of  Jordan  "  (standpoint  western). 

Double  usage  of  phrase  in  Deuteronomy  and  Numbers. 
Summary  of  conclusions  on  Deuteronomy. 

CHAPTER  IX 

DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES  OF   THE  CRITICAL 
HYPOTHESIS:  THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING. 

I.  THE  CODE.—  Pp.  285-329. 
The  Graf  revolution  in  Pentateuchal  theory. 

I.  THK  GftAP-WitLLHAi'SKN  THKORT  or  THK  PBHSTLY  CODK. 
The  Levitical  legislation  exilian  or  later. 
Everything  in  code  not  absolutely  new. 
But  now  for  first  time  written,  and  largely  developed. 
Thrown  back  into  Mosaic  age. 
Idea  of  code  from  Ezekiel. 
History  invented  to  suit  the  cod*. 


xxxviii  CONTENTS 

Introduction  of  Pentateuch  by  Ezra  in  444  B.C. 
Differences  in  school  as  to  extent  of  Ezra's  law. 
Theory  of  later  developments,  etc. 
Hypothesis  loaded  with  difficulties. 

II    INITIAL  INCREDIBILITIES  OF  THE  THEORY. 

1.  The  moral  issue  involved. 

Deliberate  design  of  passing  off  code  as  Mosaic. 
Not  a  work  of  mere  "codification." 
Alleged  custom  of  ascribing  all  laws  to  Moses. 
Comparison  with  mediaeval  Isidorian  Decretals. 
Inconsistent  with  moral  standard  of  prophets,  etc. 

2.  The  historical  incredibility. 

Assuming  the  law  concocted,  how  did  it  get  accepted ! 
Narrative  of  reading  of  law  in  Neh.  viii. 

The  transaction  bond  fide. 

No  suspicion  of  a  new  origin  of  law. 

Classes  most  affected  made  no  protest. 

Parts  of  law  already  in  operation  at  first  return   (priests  and 
Levites,  etc.). 

3.  Unsuitability  of  code  to  situation. 

Not  adapted  to  the  conditions  of  the  return. 

Its  Mosaic  dress — tabernacle,  wilderness,  etc. 

Deviations  by  Nehemiah  from  Levitical  rules. 

Unsuitability  of  the  tithe-laws,  etc. 
A  temple-organisation  at  return,  of  which  code  knows  nothing. 

III.  ARGUMENT  FROM  SILENCE  IN  ITS  BEARINGS  ON  THE  CODE. 

Positive  grounds  of  theory :  lines  of  reply. 
Precarious  character  of  argument  from  silence. 

1.  Inconclusiveness  of  argument  shown  from  critical  admissions. 
Allowed    that    materially  a    large  part  of    the  legislation  in 

operation  before  the  exile. 
Driver  on  "  pre-existing  temple  usage." 
Critical  distinction  of  "  praxis  "  and  "  code." 
If  praxis  existed  consistently  with  history,  so  might  code. 
Improbability  that  no  written  law  existed  regulating  practice. 

2.  Wide  scope  of  this  "pre-existing  usage  "  :  bearings  on  law. 

How  much   presupposed  in  existence  of  temple,  priesthood, 

cultus,  sacrifices,  feasts,  etc. 
Wellhausen's  large  admissions  on  cultus. 
Silence  of  history  on  "feasts,"  etc. 
8.  Theory  tested  in  case  of  Levites. 

MostjK»<-exilian  books  as  silent  about  Levites  as  jwe-exilian. 
E.g.,  II.  Isaiah,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  Malachi,  Psalter. 
Silence  even  in  Leviticus  (one  exception). 


CONTEN7TS  xxxix 

Silence  in  New  Testament 

Scant  allusion  in  Gospels  and  Acts :  silence  in  Hebrews. 
Application  to  day  of  atonement. 

Here  also  port-exilian  books  as  silent  as  ^re-exilian. 
Earliest  notice  in  Joseph  us. 

No  notice  in  rest  of  New  Testament :  yet  observance  prored 
by  Hebrews. 

IV.  PROOF  OF  EARLIER  EXISTENCE  OP  PRIESTLY  LKOISLATION. 
Testimony  of  history  to  institutions  (Chap.  VI.). 

1.  Relation  of  Ezekiel  to  priestly  laws. 
Ezekiel's  sketch  of  restored  temple. 
Theory  that  Priestly  Code  based  on  Ezekiel. 
Proof  that  Ezekiel  presupposes  priestly  legislation. 

Saturated  with  ideas  of  law. 
"Statutes  and  judgments." 

2.  Nearer   determination  —  priority  of  "Law  of   Holiness"    (Ley. 

xviL-xxvi.)  to  Ezekiel. 
Admitted  relation  of  this  law  to  Ezekiel. 
Theory  of  Graf,  etc.,  that  Ezekiel  was  author  of  liw. 
Theory  of  Euenen  that  law  "imitates"  Ezekiel. 
Only  satisfactory  view — that  Ezekiel  uses  the  law. 
Dr.  Driver's  agreement  with  this  view. 
Conclusions:  (1)  Priestly  law  before  the  exile  ;  (2)  Large  vista 

opened  of  extent  of  written  law. 
8.  Levitical  laws  presupposed  in  Deuteronomy. 
Denial  of  this  by  critics. 
Dr.  Driver's  admissions  on  the  subject. 
Views   of    Dillmann,    Biehm,    Kittel,    etc.,    on    dependence    of 

Deuteronomy  on  priestly  laws. 
Leading  examples  in  proof  of  such  dependence. 
But  Deuteronomy,  on  other  hand,  not  reflected  in  Priestly  Code. 
Latter  therefore  older. 

V.  DimcTTLTisa  or  THE  CRITICAL  THEORY  or  INSTITUTIONS. 

1.  Ezekiel -theory  of  origin  of  distinction  of  priests  and  LeviUs. 

Levites  degraded  idolatrous  priests  (Ezek.  xliv.). 
Untenable  assumptions  of  this  theory. 
Not  proved  from  Ezekiel : — 

(1)  Eztikiel  presupposes  older  law  in  his  denunciations  of  ministry 

of  uncircumcised.  . 

(2)  His  code  purely  ideal :  its  degradation  never  carried  out. 

(3)  Inconsistency  of  Ezekiel's  regulations  with  those  of  Priestly 

Code. 

(4)  The  people  received  the  latter  aa  in  accordance  with  their  own 

recollections  and  tradition*. 

2.  Critical  theory  of  other  institutions. 

Kg.,  (1)  The/out*  of  the  law. 


1  CONTENTS 

The  three  feasts  recognised  from  the  beginning  as  national 

feasts. 
Passover  from  first  connected  with  Exodus. 

Agricultural  view  of  passover  in  Lev.  xxiii. — &  priestly  law. 
Wellhausen's  theory  of  passover. 
Historical  notices  of  feasts. 

(2)  Sin  and  trespass  offerings. 

Ezekiel  presupposes  these  as  well-known. 
References  in  Ps.  xl.  and  in  prophets  and  history. 

(3)  The  altar  of  incense. 

8.  Incidental  references  to  law  in  history  and  prophet*. 

Critical  date  of  Joel :  Joel's  prophecy  implies  law. 

But  not  more  than  Isaiah  and  other  prophets. 
Cultus  and  feasts  in  Isaiah,  etc. 

Written  laws  assumed  :  Hos.  viii.  12. 

Previous  proofs  from  history. 

Unique  character  of  Levitical  law. 
VI.  TIMB  OF  OBIGIN  OF  THE  LEVITICAL  LAW. 
If  not  post-exilian — when  ! 

Mediating  view  of  Dillmann,  Noldeke  (age  of  kings),  etc. 

Untenableness  of  this  view  :  "  passive  existence  "  of  laws. 

Service  of  Wellhausen  theory  in  eliminating  this  view. 
No  halting-place  between  a  post-exilian  and  an  early  origin. 

This  involves  substantially  Mosaic  origin  of  laws. 

Redaction  of  code  probably  early. 


CHAPTER  X 

DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES  OF  THE  CRITICAL  HYPO- 
THESIS :  THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.  II.  THE  DOCUMENT.- 
Pp.  831-877. 

Critical  stages  in  history  of  opinion  on  this  document. 
Compass  of  writing — age — independence — unity. 

I.  Is  THERE  A  PRIESTLY  WRITING  IN  DISTINCTION  FROM  JE! 
The  P  style  distinct  from  that  of  JE. 

Its  peculiarities. 
Limitations  of  this  difference. 

Vocabulary — other  alleged  marks  of  P. 

II.  QUESTION  OF  UNITY  AND  INDEPENDENCE  OF  PRIESTLY  WRITING. 
1.  P  formerly  regarded  as  a  connected  narrative  from  a  single  pen. 
Change  with  rise  of  idea  of  "school,"  etc. 

Later  writers  "  imitate  "  earlier. 
Effects  on  conception  of  unity  of  P. 


CONTENTS  xli 

Different  relations  of  P  to  JE  :— 

(1)  in  Genesis,  (2)  in  middle  books,  (S)  in  Joshua. 
2.  Is  P  an  independent  document  T 

Denial  by  Graf — logical  grounds  of  his  denial. 
Independence  disproved  by  character  of  writing. 

(1)  The  structure  of  P  adverse  to  view  of  independence. 
The  alleged  "  completeness  "  of  the  history. 

This  not  borne  out  by  facts. 
Document  scanty,  fragmentary,  unequal. 
Its  narratives  presuppose  JE. 
Large  hiatuses  in  lives  of  patriarchs. 
Theory  of  "omissions"  ;  its  inadequacy. 

(2)  Relations  to  JE  in  subject-matter  disprove  independence. 
Parts  lacking  in  P  supplied  in  JE,  and  vice  versa. 

P  narrative  throughout  parallel  with  JE. 

Euenen  and  Wellhausen  on  this. 
Onus  of  proof  on  those  who  affirm  independence. 

III.  TEXTUAL  INTBRBKLATIONS  OF  THE  PRIMTLT  WBITINO  AND  JE. 
Interrelation  of  P  and  JE  inseparably  close  throughout. 

1.  P  and  JE  narratives  in  Genesis. 

(1)  Stories    of   creation :  these    not    contradictory,   bat    com* 

plementary. 
Close  textual  relation. 
The  Priestly  Writer  and  the  fall. 

(2)  Story  of  the  ./food  :  narratives  again  complementary. 
Relation  to  Babylonian  legend. 

In  separation  each  narrative  incomplete. 

Alleged  discrepancy  on  duration  of  flood. 

Discrepancy  arises  from  the  partition. 

Alleged  ignorance  of  flood  in  J l. 

Noah's  three  sons  :  critical  substitution  of  Canaan  for  Ham, 
(8)  TabU  of  nations  :  critical  difficulties. 

Inseparability  of  parts. 
(4)  Lives  of  patriarchs  :  Abraham,  Gen.  xii.,  xiii. 

Gen.  xiv.  ;  peculiarities  of  narrative. 

Ilagar  episode  :  Gen.  xvi. 

Gen.  xix.  29. 

Isaac  and  Jacob  :  fragmentary  character  of  narratives. 
Book  a  unity  :  divided,  the  unity  disappears. 

2.  Mosaic  period. 

(1)  Early  chapters  of  Exodus  :  inseparability  of  P  and  JE. 
Narratives  of  plagues  :  critical  distinctions  untenable. 

(2)  Wilderness  incidents  :  two  example* — 

Mission  of  spies  :  unity  of  narrative. 
Koran's  rebellion  :  a  doable  movement,  bat  narratives  in- 
separable. 


xlii  CONSENTS 

IV.  ALLEGED  INCONSISTENCIES  AND  HISTORICAL  INCREDIBILITIES  OF  P. 
Importance  of  critical  admission  that  P  knew  ,TE. 

1.  Disproves  supposed  ignorance  in  P  of  fall,  patriarchal  sacrifices, 

errors  of  patriarchs,  etc. 

2.  Duplicate  narratives — usually  not  really  such. 

Jacob  at  Bethel ;  revelations  to  Moses,  etc. 

3.  Historical  incredibilities  :  a  chief  ground  of  objection. 
Critical  reliance  on  Colenso's  "demonstrations." 
Defects  of  Colenso's  treatment. 

(1)  Colenso's  difficulties  about  tabernacle  and  priests  in   the 

wilderness. 
Absurdity  of  his  calculations. 

(2)  Difficulties  of  the  Exodus : 

Increase  of  Israel,  etc. 
Colenso  creates  difficulties  by  a  grotesque  literalism. 

The  departure  from  Barneses. 
(8)  Special  examples  : — 

Htzron  and  Hamul  in  Gen.  xlvi. 

The  list  of  the  Descent. 
The  number  of  the  first-born. 

Key  to  the  solution. 

V.  GENERAL  RESULTS  :  MOSAICITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
To  what  point  has  the  argument  conducted  ? 

(1)  Not  to  view  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  in  present 

shape  and  extent ; 

(2)  But  to  view  of  the  unity,  essential  Mosaicity,  and  relative 

antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

1.  Support  given  to  this  view  in  tradition :  crucial  points  : — 

(1)  Old  Testament  ascribes  the  three  codes  to  Moses. 

Two  said  to  be  written  by  him. 

(2)  Both  Deuteronomy  and  Priestly  Writing  presuppose   the  JE 

history. 
(8)  Deuteronomy  received  as  Mosaic  in  time  of  Josiah. 

(4)  Whole  Pentateuch  received  as  Mosaic  in  time  of  Ezra. 

(5)  Samaritans  received  Pentateuch  as  Mosaic. 

2.  Critical  results  support  Mosaicity  of  Pentateuch. 

(1)  No  good  reason  for  separating  J  and  E,  or  giving  them  late  date. 

(2)  Deuteronomy    not    of   Josianic   origin,    but    its    discourses 

genuinely  Mosaic. 
(8)  Priestly  writing ;  not  post-exilian ;  but  legislation  and  history 

early. 
8.  Proofs  of  early  date  otJSook  of  Genesis. 

Later  references  to  Genesis. 
4.  Early  knowledge  and    wide   diffusion    of   writing    favours    the 

Mosaicity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Writing  known  and  practised  by  Hebrews  in  Mosaic  age. 
This  implies  earlier  use  :  possibility  of  pre-Mosaic  documents. 


CONTENTS  xliii 

5.  Mode  of  composition  best  conceive*!   of  as  collaboration  or  co- 
operation. 

How  Pentateuch  may  have  grown  to  present  form. 
Would  seldom  be  copied  as  a  whole. 
The  "law  of  Jehovah  "  in  pious  circles. 

APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  X 
THK  LATER  HISTORICAL  BOOKS.— Pp.  378-391. 

I.  Bearings  of  critical  theory  of  the  Pentateuch  on  later  books. 

P  history — Deuteronomy — JE. 
II.  Results  for  later  books  of  opposite  view. 
Delitzsch  on  Joshua. 
Deuteronomic  revisions. 
III.  Critical  treatment  of  later  books. 
General  character  of  later  histories. 

1.  Book  of  Judges. 

Critical  analysis  of  this  book  (Kautzsch,  eta). 
The  Deuteronomic  framework. 
Consciousness  of  unity  in  Israel. 
Religious  and  moral  ideas. 
Time  of  origin. 

2.  Books  of  Samuel. 
Diversities  in  analysis. 

Kautzsch,  Driver,  H.  P.  Smith,  Lbhr. 

Alleged  diversity  of  representation. 

Alleged  partisanship  of  sources. 

Mode  and  time  of  origin. 
8.  Books  of  Chronicles. 

Critical  assaults  on  credibility. 

Deepest  ground — Levitical  representation. 

View  of  wholesale  invention  untenable. 

Theory  of  older  sources  (Dilhnann,  Klostermaon,  etc.). 

Corroborations  of  history. 

Question  of  the  numbers. 

General  result 

CHAPTER  XI 
ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.— Pp.  393-480. 

Archaeology  as  controlling  criticism  and  history. 

L  GENERAL  BEAIUNOH  OF  MODERN  A  RCH  MO  LOGICAL  DISCOVERT. 
Triumphs  of  archeology  in  recovery  of  ancient  civilisations. 
Singular  degree  of  illumination  on  Bible. 
KflecU  on  attitude  of  critics. 


xliv  CONTENTS 

Alteration  of  perspective  in  relation  to  Israel. 
Antiquity  of  letters  and  arts  in  Egypt  and  Babylonia. 

Babylonian  libraries. 
Early  explorations  at  Nineveh. 

Palace  of  Sargon — a  Biblical  confirmation. 

Library  of  Assurbanipal. 

II.  BABYLONIAN  LEGENDS  AND  THE  EARLY  CHAPTERS  OF  GENESIS. 
Does  Genesis  preserve  oldest  traditions  of  the  race  ? 
Reasons  for  looking  for  answer  to  Babylonia. 
Glance  first  at  facts,  then  at  explanation. 

1.  Table  of  nations  in  Genesis  x. 
Threefold  testimony  about  Babylonia. 

(1)  Babel  before  Nineveh  ;  (2)  Assyria  colonised  from  Baby- 
lonia ;  (3)  Founders  of  Babylonian  civilisation  not 
Semites. 

Monumental  corroboration  of  these  positions,  formerly  disputed. 
Statement  that  Elam  is  "the  son  of  Shem." 

Recent  confirmation  from  discovery. 
Distribution  of  mankind  from  plain  of  Shinar. 
Great  antiquity  of  Babylonian  civilisation. 
Tendency  to  derive  other    civilisations  from    this — Egypt, 
China,  etc. 

2.  Creation  and  deluge  stories. 

Discovery  of  creation  tablets— comparison  and  contrast  with 

Genesis  i. 

Polytheistic  and  mythological  character ;  features  of  resem- 
blance. 

The  sabbath — paradise  and  fall. 
The  deluge  tablets. 

Debased  by  polytheism,  but  marked  resemblance  to  Biblical 

account. 
S.  Explanations  of  connection. 

(1)  Theory  of  borrowing  from  Babylonia. 
Babylonian  legends  adopted  and  purified. 
When  was  this  borrowing  I 

In  exile  ?  reasons  against  this. 

In  time  of  Ahaz  or  Solomon  T 

In  time  after  settlement  in  Canaan  T 

Pervasion  of  Canaan  by  Babylonian  influence*. 

Difficulties  of  "borrowing"  theory. 

Brought  from  Ur  of  Chaldees  f 

Objection  from  absence  of  early  mention  ;  reply  to  this. 

(2)  Theory  of  cognate  relationship. 

Radically  different  character  of  stories  supports  this  view. 
Theory  of  cognate  relationship  favoured  by  many  scholars 

(Kittel,  Hommel,  Oettli,  etc.). 
Genesis  preserves  older  and  purer  version  of  original  tradition. 


CONTENTS  xlv 

(3)  Babylonian  monotheitm—"  Babel  and  Bible," 
Groundwork  of  truth  in  this  view. 

Supposed  occurrence  of  name  Jehovah  (JAU). 
Israelitish  religion  not  borrowed  from  Babylonia. 

III.  TUB  ABRAHAMIC  AGE— THB  CHEDORLAOMBR  EXPEDITION. 

Patriarch*  bore  personal  names. 
Importance  of  age  of  Abraham. 

The  Hammurabi  Code. 
Expedition  of  Chedorlaomer  (Genesis  xiv.). 

Strange  character  of  story. 

Denial  of  its  historicity  (Noldeke,  Wellhausen,  etc. ). 

Singular  corroborations  from  modern  discovery. 

The  Elamitdc  supremacy  ;  names  of  kings  ;  relation  to  Palestine  ; 
Uru-Salim,  etc. 

Slighting  of  evidence  by  critics. 

Midrash  theory  of  Genesis  xiv. 

In  reality  accurate  knowledge  of  remote  times  and  bona  fide*  of 
writer  thoroughly  established. 

Defence  of  narrative  by  critics. 

IV.  JOSEPH  IN  EGYPT. 

Transition  with  Joseph  to  Egypt 

Admitted  accuracy  of  picture  of  Egyptian  life  and  customs. 

Points  formerly  challenged  established  from  monuments. 

Egyptian  manners  ;  descent  into  Egypt,  eta 

Tale  of  two  brothers. 
Bearings  on  place  and  time  of  origin  of  narrative. 

Must  have  originated  on  Egyptian  soil. 

Objection  from  proper  names  not  valid. 

V.  THB  MOSAIC  PBRIOD — THREE  GREAT  DISCOVERIES. 

Main  periods  in  history  of  Egypt 
Old  Empire  :  Menes  as  myth. 

Petrie's  discovery  of  Menes  and  of  first  two  dynasties. 
Middle  Empire  :  Joseph  and  Shepherd  Kings. 
New  Empire :  Israel  and  Exodus  to  be  sought  for  in  eighteenth 
or  nineteenth  dynasty. 

Theories  of  Exodus :  Rameses  n.  and  Meneptah. 
Recent  discoveries  bearing  on  Mosaic  period. 

1.  Finding  of  the  muinmut  of  the  Pharaohs  (1881,  1898). 
Recovery  of  all  the  great  Pharaohs. 

2.  Discovery  of  Tel  el-Amama  tablet*. 

Correspondence  of  Amenophis   III.  and   Amenophia  iv.  (e, 

1400  B.C.). 

Language  and  writing  Babylonian. 
LttUrs  from  Palestine. 


xlvi  CONTENTS 

8.  Discovery  of  name  "Israel"  on    monument  of   Meneptah — 

supposed  Pharaoh  of  Exodus. 

Difficulty  arising  from  this  :  Israel  already  in  Palestine. 
Earlier  traces  of  tribes  in  Palestine. 
Need  of  modification  of  view. 

VI.  ISRAEL  AND  THE  EXODUS. 

Was  the  Exodus  under  nineteenth  dynasty  ? 
The  chronological  difficulty  : — 

Too  short  interval  till  Solomon  ;  too  long  from  Abraham. 
Biblical  statements  :  Exodus  placed  about  1450  B.C. 
Suitability  of  conditions  of  this  time  (eighteenth  dynasty). 

The  "store-cities"  not  decisive. 

Reign  of  Thothmes  in.  ;  on  this  view  the  oppressor. 

Picture  of  brickmakers. 

Career  of  Hatasu  :  "  Pharaoh's  daughter  "  ? 
Problem  of  the  Khabiri  of  Tel  el-Amarna  tablets. 

Their  conquest  of  Canaan. 

Tendency  to  identify  them  with  Hebrews. 

VII.  EMPIRE  OF  THE  HITTITES — PERIOD  OF  THE  KINGS. 

1.  The  Hittites — early  Biblical  notices. 

Existence  of  empire  denied. 
Egyptian  and  Assyrian  confirmations. 
Discovery  of  Hittite  monuments. 
Hieroglyphic  and  origin  of  Hittites. 

2.  Period  of  kings. 

Nearly  all  points  of  contact  receive  corroboration. 

Assyrian  and  Hebrew  chronology. 

Instances  in  history  —  Shiahak's   invasion  ;   Mesh  a  ;  Jehu ; 

Tiglath-Pileser  ;  fall  of  Samaria  ;  Sennacherib,  etc. 
Manasseh  and  credibility  of  Chronicles. 

VIII.  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 

Daniel  put  in  age  of  Maccabees. 

Theory  of  an  older  basis — historical  and  prophetical. 

Disproof  of  objections  to  historicity. 

Greek  name  of  instruments. 

Discovery  of  early  date  and  wide  range  of  Greek  culture. 

Character  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

Belshazzar  now  proved  historical. 
The  capture  of  Babylon. 

Not  discrepant  with  Daniel. 

"  Babylonian  Chronicle"  :  stages  in  taking  of  Babylon. 

Final  capture  :  Belshazzar  slain. 

Question  of  "  Darius  the  Mecle." 


CONTENTS  xlvii 

CHAPTER  XII 

PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS :    THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF 
REVELATION.—^.  431-478. 

Piialma  and  prophets  the  soul  of  Old  Testament  revelation. 
PART  I 

DAVID  AND  THE  PSALTER 
Value  of  psalms  independent  of  their  dates. 
Yet  dates  important  in  history  of  revelation. 

I.  THKOBT  or  THE  POST-EXILIAN  ORIGIN  or  THE  PSALTER, 
P<>>t  exilian  origin  of  psalms  a  dogma  of  Wellhausen  School. 
Wellhausen's  estimate  of  the  psalms. 

1.  Theory  it  not  and  cannot  be  proved. 

There  are  post-exilian,  possibly  Maccabeean,  psalms. 

No  proof  that  most,  or  all,  of  the  psalms  are  post-exilian. 

The  theory  conflicts  with  tradition. 

2.  Post-exilian  period  mostly  a  blank  to  our  knowledge. 
Opening  for  groundless  theorising. 

8.  Age  not  productive  of  literature. 
No  record  of  itself. 

Return  from  captivity  an  incentive  to  psalm -com  position. 
Hut  bulk  of  psalms  show  no  post-exilian  marks. 
Many  psalms  demand  an  earlier  date. 

Psalms  about  king,  etc. 

4.  Traditional  connection  of  psalms  with  David. 
Presumption  in  favour  of  pre-exilian  psalms. 
Positive  evidences  of  pre-exilian  psalmody. 

Temple  "  singers"  at  return. 

References  to  temple  praise. 

"  Songs  of  Zion  "  ;  quotations,  etc. 
Ascription  of  psalms  to  David  in  titles. 
Chronicler  traces  temple  singing  and  music  to  David. 

IL  THE  HISTORICAL  POSITION  OP  DAVID  AS  PSALMIST. 
Critical  view  of  David  :  untrue  to  history. 
1.  David's  career  surveyed  : — 

(1)  As  young  man  :  early  piety  and  skill. 

(2)  At  Saufi  Court :  behaviour  irreproachable. 

(3)  As  exile :  relations  to  his  men  ;  mode  of  life  ;  relations 

with  Saul,  etc. 

(4)  As    timj :    services    to    country  and    religion ;    foreign 

oonqneata  ;  project  of  temple  and  promise. 
Biota  on  life  and  reign  :   Bathsheba. 
Estimate  of  character. 


xlviii  CONTENTS 

2.  Abundant  material  and  motive  for  psalm-composition. 
View  of  David  as  model  for  effeminate  frivolity. 

A  "  sportful "  muse. 

Davidic  psalms  :  genuineness  of  Ps.  xviii. 
If  this  genuine,  doubtless  many  others. 

Views  of  Ewald,  Hitzig,  Bleek,  Delitzsoh,  etc. 
Probably  number  of  Davidic  psalms  not  small. 

Value  of  titles  of  Books  I  and  II. 

III.  COLLECTION  OF  THE  PSALMS  AND  PLACE  IN  CANON. 

Probable  main  periods  of  pre-exiliau  psalm-composition. 

David  :  Jehoshaphat :  Hezekiah. 
Separate  collections  of  psalms  :  Davidic,  Korahite,  etc. 
Later  psalms  :  division  into  books. 
Date  of  collections  and  of  close  of  Canon. 
Testimony  of: — 

1.  Books  of  Maccabees. 

2.  Sep tu agin t  translation  (before   130  B.C.  ;   probably  a  good 

deal  earlier). 
Meaning  of  titles  forgotten. 

3.  Kcclesiasticus  (implies  Canon  before  200  B.C.). 

4.  Books  of  Chronicles  :  Canon  apparently  completed  ;  implies 

pre-exiliau  psalmody. 

5.  Book  of  Jonah  :  use  of  earlier  psalms. 

6.  Jeremiah :  quotes  Ps.  i.  (implies  Davidic  collection) ;  thanks- 

giving formula. 

7.  Music  of  second  temple  an  inheritance  from  first  temple. 
General  result. 

PABT  II 
THE  PREDICTIVE  ELEMENT  IN  PEOPHEOY 

Uniqueness  of  Hebrew  prophecy. 
Nature  and  development  of  prophecy. 
Prophecy  and  genius :  its  supernatural  side. 
Tests  of  true  prophecy. 

I.  SUPERNATURAL  PREDICTION  AN  ELEMENT  IN  PROPHECY. 
Essence  of  prophecy  wrongly  placed  in  prediction. 
Modern  denial  of  predictive  prophecy. 
Prediction  not  mere  deductions  of  prophets'  own. 
Inevitable  that  prediction  should  enter  into  prophecy. 

Has  to  do  with  promise  and  warning. 

With  future  of  kingdom  of  God. 

Distinction  from  heathen  soothsaying. 

II.  REALITY  OF  SUPERNATURAL  PREDICTION. 
Failure  of  critics  to  eliminate  prediction. 
Examples  from  Wellhausen. 


CONTENTS  xlix 

Abundance  of  prediction  in  prophetic  writing!. 

The  captivities,  70  weeks,  etc. 
Messianic  prophecy ;  Professor  Flint  quoted. 

III.  HUMAN  CONDITIONING  or  PBOPHECT  :  CAICONS  or  INTERPRETA- 
TION. 

Psychological  aide  of  prophecy  ;  necessary  limitations. 
Contrast  between  prophecy  of  near  and  prophecy  ofrrmnU  events. 
The  former  definite ;  the  latter  necessarily  more  ideal  in  form 

and  character. 
Bearings  on  interpretation  : — 

1.  Prophecy  of  distant  future  presented  in  forms  of  present. 
Symbol  in  prophecy. 

2.  Time-element  in  prophecy. 

Certain  fact  is  triumph  of  kingdom  of  God  ;  steps  to  this  hidden. 
"  Day  of  Jehovah  "  as  background  of  every  crisis. 
Events  grouped  in  ideal,  not  temporal  relations. 

3.  Conditional  element  in  prophecy. 
Jeremiah  on  this  :  examples. 

Bearings  on  fulfilment  of  promises  to  Israel. 
Bearings  on  New  Testament  Parousia. 

PAKT  III 
THE  PnooRF-ssivENEss  or  REVELATION  :  MORAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

General  recognition  of  progressiveness,  but  bearings  not  always 
clear. 

I.  NATURE  AND  ORIGIN  or  THE  MORAL  DIFFICULTIES. 
Not  progress  in  knowledge  only. 
Growth  from  lower  morality  to  higher. 
Elements  of  evil  in  lower  stages — 

Polygamy  ;  blood-revenge  ;  slavery,  etc. 
Exaggeration  of  moral  difficulties :  Deistical  controversy. 
Central  difficulty  :  ap|>arent  implication  of  God  in  laws  and  com- 
mands which  our  consciences  condemn. 

II.  ERRONEOUS  OR  INADEQUATE  SOLUTIONS. 
"  Progreasiveness  "  alone  not  a  solution. 
Denia!  of  evil  in  lower  stage  not  a  solution. 
Evolutionary  theory. 
Keality  of  good  and  evil  must  be  upheld. 
Critical  solution — laws  and  commands  attributed  to  God  not  really 

His. 

This  a  cutting  of  the  knot,  not  a  loosing  of  it 
Rolls  burden  on  prophetic  writers  who  endorse  commands. 
E.g.,  Deuteronomy  and  extermination  of  Cauaanitrs  ;  revision 
of  Joshua. 


1  CONTENTS 

Tendency  to  undue  lowering  of  morality  of  early  Israel. 

Professor  Gray  on  non-recognition  of  obligations  to  Gentiles. 
Moral  precepts  of  universal  scope  always  recognised. 
Lapses  of  individuals  not  measure  of  moral  standards. 

III.  GENERAL  LAWS  OF  PBOGRESSIVE  REVELATION. 

Larger  problem  of  God's  general  relation  to  evil  of  world. 

1.  Revelation  must  take  up  man  where  it  finds  him  :  results  of  this. 

2.  Revelation  responsible  only  for  new  element  it  introduces,  not  for 

everything  associated  with  it  in  mind  of  recipient. 

3.  Revelation  lays  hold  on  better  elements,  in  order  by  means  of  them 

to  overcome  what  is  imperfect  and  eviL 
Educative  aspect  of  revelation. 
Abraham's  sacrifice  of  Isaac. 
Cities  of  refuge  and  blood-revenge. 
Laws  of  marriage  ;  polygamy  and  monogamy. 
Restrictions  of  spirit  of  mercy ;  Canaanites. 
All  through  preparation  for  higher  stage. 
Higher  stages  of  revelation  conserve  all  elements  of  value  in  lower. 

THE  CLOSE 

Culmination  of  progressive  revelation  in  Christ. 
Faith  in  Him  essential  to  right  view  of  Old  Testament. 
Bearings  of  Old  Testament  criticism  on  New  Testament. 
Same  principles  and  methods  now  being  applied. 
Crisis  in  view  of  Christ  and  New  Testament, 
Bearing  of  foregoing  discussion  on  issue. 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTERS 


CHAP  IKK  I  r*a* 

The  Jewish  Canon      .            ......  481 

CHAPTER  II 

The  Bible  and  other  Sacred  Books      .....  484 

Mythology  and  History  in  the  Old  Testament           .            .            .  485 

Inspiration  and  the  Materials  of  the  Record  ....  486 

CHAPTER  III 

Critical  Extravagances            ......  488 

CHAPTER  IV 

KSnig  on  the  Personification  Theory  .....  490 

The  Covenant  with  Israel       ......  491 

Theories  of  the  Exodus           ......  492 

Patriarchal  Chronology          ......  493 

Gnnkel's  Theory  of  Patriarchal  History         ....  494 

The  Name  Jehovah  in  the  Patriarchal  Age    ....  495 

CHAPTER  V 

Early  Ideas  of  God      .......  499 

Antiquity  of  the  Name  Jehovah         .....  497 

Professor  W.  R.  Smith's  Theory  of  Sacrifice  ....  498 

Sacrifice  of  Children  in  Canaan           .....  499 

H.  P.  Smith  on  the  Brazen  Serpent   .....  .'.no 

Dillmann  on  Image- Worship  ......  501 

CHAPTER  VI 

Objections  to  Mosaic  Origin  of  Det-alo^ue       ....  503 

The  Force  of  Kx.  xx.  24                      .            .           .           .            .  60:J 

Frewlotu  under  the  Law  .  .  .  .  .  .504 

The  Genealogy  of  Zadok          ......  504 

David's  Sons  as  Priests           ....                        .  50ft 


lii  NOTES  TO  CHAPTERS 


CHAPTER  VII  FAOB 

The  Self-Confidence  of  Critics             .....  507 

CoruiU's  Decomposition  of  J  ......  508 

The  View  of  J  and  E  as  "Schools"    .....  509 

CHAPTER  VIII 

The  breaking  up  of  Deuteronomy       .....  510 

Deuterononiic  and  Priestly  Styles      .  .  .  .  .511 

Deuteronomy  as  Fraua  Pia     .  .  .  .  .  .513 

Oblivion  of  Charlemagne's  Code          .....  514 

The  Law  of  the  King  in  Deut.  xvii.    .....  515 

Minor  Discrepancies  in  Laws  ......  515 

CHAPTER  IX 

Kuenen's  early  Views  of  the  Post-Exilian  Theory       .            .            .  517 

The  Unity  of  the  Law             ......  518 

Ezekiel  and  earlier  Laws         .  .  .  .  .  .519 

Quotations  in  Deuteronomy  from  JE  and  P    .            .            .            .  520 

Levites  in  Ezekiel        .......  520 

Alleged  Contradictions  in  the  Passover  Laws             .            .            .  520 
The  Mediating  View  of  the  Priestly  Code      .            .            .            .521 

CHAPTER  X 

Klostermann  on  the  Relation  of  JE  and  P                   .            .            .  522 

Colenso's  Numerical  Objections           .....  522 

Christ's  Testimony  to  the  Old  Testament       .  .  .  .523 

The  Samaritan  Pentateuch      ......  524 

Early  Hebrew  Writing            ......  525 

Hypothesis  in  Criticism          ......  526 

The  Idea  of  " Co-operation"  in  Critical  History        .  .  .527 

State  of  the  Hebrew  Text       ......  527 

CHAPTER  XI 

Ethnological  Relations  in  Gen.  z.      .            .            .            .            .  529 

Cognateness  of  Babylonian  and  Hebrew  Traditions   .            .            .  530 

Alleged  "  Midrash  "  Character  of  Gen.  xiv.    ....  531 

The  Resurrection  of  Myths     ......  532 

The  Identification  of  Rameses  and  Pithora     ....  533 

Belshazzar  and  Babylon          ......  534 

CHAPTER  XII 

Critical  Estimate  of  David      ......  535 

The  Unity  of  Second  Isaiah    ......  536 

The  Prophecies  of  Daniel        ......  536 

Kueuen  on  Unfulfilled  Prophecies      .....  538 

The  Destruction  of  the  Canaauites     .....  539 

INDEXES                                ......  541 


CHAPTER  I 

Sntrooucton?:  TTbe  problem  Statefc 


"I  hare  been  obliged  to  bestow  the  greatest  amount  of  labour  on  a 
hitherto  entirely  uu worked  field,  the  investigation  of  the  inner  constitu- 
tion of  the  separate  books  of  the  Old  Testament  by  the  aid  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  (a  new  name  to  no  Humanist)." — EICHHORN. 

"  It  is  true  that  the  present  destructive  proceedings  in  the  department 
of  Old  Testament  criticism,  which  demand  the  construction  of  a  new  edifice, 
are  quite  fitted  to  confuse  consciences  and  to  entangle  a  weak  faith  in  all 
kinds  of  temptation.  If,  however,  we  keep  fast  hold  in  this  labyrinth  of 
the  one  truth,  Chriatus  vere  resurrexit,  we  have  in  our  hands  Ariadne's 
thread  to  lead  us  out  of  it." — DKLITZSCH. 

Wellhausen  "has  identified  himself  with  that  'so-called  criticism* 
(Ewald's  phraseology)  which  has  'given  up  Moses  and  so  much  that 
is  excellent  besides,'  and  which  leads  on  directly  to  the  contemptuous 
rejection  of  the  Old  Testament,  if  not  also  of  the  New  (again,  Ewald's 
phraseology). " — CHKYNB. 

"Erroneous  criticism  cannot  be  corrected  by  dogmatic  theology,  but 
only  by  a  better,  more  searching,  and  less  prejudiced  criticism." — OTTLEY. 


CHAPTER  I 
INTRODUCTORY :  THE  PROBLEM  STATED 

WHEN  we  speak  of  a  problem  of  the  Old  Testament,  what 
do  we  mean  ?  What  is  the  problem,  and  how  does  it  arise  ? 
A  consideration  of  these  questions  will  form  a  suitable 
introduction  to  the  subsequent  discussions. 

It  can  hardly  be  necessary  for  us,  in  opening  our  inquiry, 
to  define  what  is  meant  by  the  Old  Testament,  though  on 
this  point  also,  as  between  Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics, 
a  few  questions  might  arise.  By  the  term  is  here  under- 
stood, in  brief,  that  collection  of  Scriptures  which  now 
forms  the  first  part  of  our  ordinary  Bibles,1 — which  the  Jews 
technically  divided  into  "  the  law,  the  prophets,  and  the 
(holy)  writings,"2 — which  our  Lord  and  His  apostles  spoke 
of  as  "  the  Scriptures,"  *  "  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  *  "  the  oracles 
of  God,"  6  "  the  sacred  writings,"  *  and  uniformly  treated  as  the 
"God-inspired" 7  and  authoritative  record  of  God's  revelations 
to,  and  dealings  with,  His  ancient  people.8  This  yields  a 
first  regulative  position  in  our  study.  It  may  be  laid  down  f 
as  axiomatic  that,  whatever  they  may  be  for  others,  these  I 
ancient  Scriptures  can  never  have  less  value  for  the  Chris- 1 
tian  Church  than  they  had  for  the  Church's  Master — Christ  \ 

1  This  excludes  the  Apocrypha.  On  the  name  itoelf  Bishop  Wettcott 
•ays :  "  The  establishment  of  Christianity  Rave  at  oiice  a  diatimt  unity  to 
the  former  dispensation,  and  thus  St.  Paul  could  speak  of  the  Jewish 
Scripture*  by  the  name  \vhich  they  have  always  retained  since,  as  the  'Old 
Testament'  or  'Covenant'  ('2  Cor.  iii.  14).  ...  At  the  close  of  the  second 
century  the  terms  '  Old '  and  '  New  Testament '  were  already  in  common 
me."—  TJu  Bible  in  the  Ckvreh,  p.  5. 

*  Cf.  Lake  xxiv.  44  :    "  In  the  law  of  Moses,  and  the  prophet*,  and 
the  psalms." 

*  Matt.  xxi.  42  ;  Luke  xxiv.  27.  4  Rom.  i.  2. 

•  Rom.  iii.  2.  •  2  Tim.  UL  15. 
»  2  Tim.  UL  18.     Cf.  2  Pet.  i.  21. 

•  Matt  v.  18  ;  XT.  3,  6 ;  xxii.  29,  81,  82 ;  Luke  xxir.  27 ;  John  z.  86, 
etc.     See  Note  A  on  the  Jewish  Canon. 

S 


4  INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED 

Himself.      Believing  scholars   of  all  standpoints   may   be 
trusted  to  agree  in  this.1 

But  what  is  meant  by  the  problem  of  the  Old  Testament  ? 
Naturally  there  are  many  problems,  but  our  title  indicates 
that  the  problem  we  have  now  in  view  is  that  which  arises 
peculiarly  from  the  course  of  recent  criticism.  That  problem 
will  be  found  large  and  complex  enough  to  occupy  us  in 
this  volume,  and,  as  going  to  the  root  of  a  believing  attitude 
to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Covenant,  will  probably  be 
allowed  to  be,  for  the  present  moment,  the  fundamental 
and  essential  one.  In  this  chapter  we  shall  seek  to  convey 
as  clear  an  idea  as  we  can  of  where  we  conceive  the  crux 
of  this  Old  Testament  problem  to  lie,  and  shall  indicate 
generally  the  lines  to  be  followed  in  the  handling  of  it. 

I.  THE  PROBLEM  TWOFOLD:  RELIGIOUS  AND  LITERARY 

The  problem  of  the  Old  Testament,  then,  as  it  presses  on 
the  Church  from  various  sides  at  the  present  hour,  may  be 
said   to   be  twofold.     First,  and  most  fundamentally,  the 
question  raised  by  it  is — How  are  we  to  conceive  of  the 
religion  which  the  Old  Testament  embodies,  and  presents  to 
/us  in  its  successive  stages,  as  respects  its  nature  and  origin  ? 
/Is  it  a  natural  product  of  the  development  of  the  human 
J  spirit,  as  scholars  of  the   distinctively  "modern"  way  of 
'  thinking — Kuenen,  Wellhausen,   Stade,   and    the    like* — 
allege ;  or  is  it  something  more — a  result  of  special,  super- 
natural revelation  to  Israel,  such  as  other  nations  did  not 
possess  ?     Then    second,  How  are  we  to    conceive  of  the 
literature  itself,  or  of  the  books  which  make  up  the  Old 
Testament,  as  respects  their  age,  origin,  mode  of  composition, 
trustworthiness,  and,  generally,  their  connection  with   the 
religion  of  which  they  are  the  monuments  ? 

At  first  sight  it  might  seem  as  if  the  second  of  these 
questions  had  no  necessary  relation  to  the  first.  Nothing, 
it  may  be  plausibly  argued,  depends,  for  the  decision  of 
the  supernatural  origin  of  the  religion,  on  whether  the 

1  Professor  G.  A.  Smith  says :  "The  Bible  of  the  Jews  in  our  Lord's  time 
was  practically  our  Old  Testament.  For  us  its  supreme  sanction  is  that 
which  it  derived  from  Christ  Himself.  .  .  .  What  was  indispensable  to 
the  Redeemer  must  always  be  indispensable  to  the  redeemed." — Modern 
Criticism,  p.  11. 

1  See  below,  pp.  12  ffi, 


INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED  5 

Pentateuch,  as  we  have  it,  is  from  the  pen  of  Moses,  or  is 
made  up  of  three  or  four  documents,  put  together  at  a  lute 
date ;  or  at  what  period  the  Levitical  law  was  finally 
codified ;  or  whether  the  Book  of  Isaiah  is  the  work  of  one, 
or  two,  or  of  ten  authors;  or  whether  the  Psalms  are 
pre-exilic,  or  post-exilic,  in  origin.  Yet,  as  will  be  seen  more 
fully  later,1  the  dependence  of  the  literary  criticism  on  the 
religious  theory  is  really  very  close.  For,  if  it  be  true, 
as  every  fair  mind  must  admit,  that  there  are  many 
scholars  who  succeed,  to  their  own  satisfaction,  in  com- 
bining the  acceptance  of  the  main  results  of  the  critical 
hypothesis  of  the  Old  Testament,  even  in  its  advanced  form, 
with  firm  belief  in  the  reality  of  supernatural  revelation 
in  Israel,  and  in  the  culmination  of  that  revelation  in 
Christ;  it  is  equally  true  that,  in  the  case  of  others,  and 
these  pre-eminently,  in  Dr.  Cheyne's  phrase,  "  The  Founders 
of  Criticism,"  the  decisions  arrived  at  on  purely  literary 
questions, — the  date  of  a  psalm,  e.g.,  the  genuineness  of  a 
passage,  or  the  integrity  of  a  book, — are  largely  controlled 
by  the  view  taken  of  the  origin  and  course  of  development 
of  the  religion ;  and,  with  a  different  theory  on  these 
subjects,  the  judgments  passed  on  the  age,  relations,  and 
historical  value,  of  particular  writings,  would  be  different 
also.  This  dependence  of  many  of  the  conclusions  of 
criticism — by  no  means,  of  course,  all — on  the  religious  and 
historical  standpoint  is  practically  admitted  by  Wellhausen, 
when  he  declares  that  "it  is  only  within  the  region  of 
religious  antiquities  and  dominant  religious  ideas  —  the 
region  which  Vatke  in  his  Bibli&chc  Theologie  had  occupied 
in  its  full  breadth,  and  where  the  real  battle  first  kindled— 
that  the  controversy  can  be  brought  to  a  definite  issue."8 

It  is  the  perception  of  this  fact  and  of  its  results  which 
affords  the  explanation  of  the  very  genuine  disquiet  and 
perplexity  which  undeniably  exist  in  large  sections  of  the 
Church  as  to  the  tendency  and  outcome  of  recent  develop- 

1  See  below,  pp.  16  IT. 

1  Hist,  of  Itrael,  p.  12.  On  Vatke,  see  below,  p.  18.  Graf  alto,  the 
pioneer  of  the  new  movement  (see  below,  pp.  199  h*.),  in  his  chief  work,  lays 
•tress  on  the  fact  that  Pentateuch  criticism  was  bound  to  remain  "  unclear, 
uncertain,  and  wavering,"  till  it  grasped  the  fact  of  the  port-exilian  origin 
of  the  Levitical  legislation.  To  attempt  to  decide  its  problems  on  mere 
literary  grounds  was  to  move  in  a  "vicious  circle." — (Jaehicht.  Bticher, 
pp.  2,  S. 


6    INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED 

merits  in  Old  Testament  criticism.  From  the  popular  point 
of  view — the  light  in  which  the  matter  presents  itself  to 
the  average  Christian  niiud  —  the  problem  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  simply  one  of  how  we  are  to  regard  the  Bible. 
It  is  not  merely,  as  the  instinct  of  the  humblest  is  quick 
enough  to  perceive,  the  dates  and  authorship  of  books  that 
are  in  dispute  in  these  critical  theories :  it  is  the  whole 
question  of  the  value  of  the  Bible  as  an  inspired  and 
authoritative  record  of  God's  historical  revelation  to  man- 
kind. Has  God  spoken,  and  does  this  book  convey  to  us 
His  sure  word  for  our  salvation  and  guidance  ?  Have  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  any  longer  the  value  for 
us  which  they  had  for  Christ  and  His  disciples  ?  Or  are 
we  to  concede  to  the  writers  of  the  school  above  mentioned, 
that,  as  the  result  of  the  critical  discussions  of  the  past 
century,  the  historical  foundations  of  Old  Testament  revela- 
tion have  in  the  main  been  subverted  ?  Must  man's 
changing  and  erring  thoughts  about  God  henceforth  take 
the  place  of  God's  words  to  man  ?  Are  the  erewhile 
"  lively  oracles "  of  God  simply  the  fragmentary  remains  of 
a  literature  to  which  no  special  quality  of  divineness 
attaches,  and  is  the  supposed  history  of  revelation  largely 
a  piecing  together  of  the  myths,  legends,  and  free  inventions 
of  an  age  whose  circle  of  ideas  the  modern  spirit  has 
outgrown  ?  These  and  like  questions,  that  extensive  body 
of  opinion  which  arrogates  to  itself  the  title  "  modern " 
would  answer  with  an  unhesitating  "  Yes " ;  it  need  not 
occasion  surprise  if  the  great  mass  of  believing  opinion  in 
the  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  meets  such  a  challenge  with 
an  emphatic  "  No." 

It  is  to  be  admitted  that  the  position  of  those  who,  at 
the  present  time,  occupy  a  believing  standpoint,  yet  are 
strongly  repelled  by  the  rationalism  which  seems  to  them 
to  inhere  in  much  of  the  prevailing  criticism,  is  one  of 
peculiar  difficulty.  On  the  one  hand,  they  feel  keenly  the 
seriousness  of  the  issues  by  which  they  are  confronted. 
They  seem  to  themselves  to  be  called  to  give  up,  not  only 
those  ideas  of  the  Bible  in  which  they  have  been  nurtured, 
and  with  which  their  tenderest  associations  are  entwined, 
but  the  view  of  the  Bible  that  appears  to  them  to  arise 
from  an  impartial  study  of  its  contents  and  claims.  They 
see  the  disintegrating  processes  which  have  wrought  such 


INTRODUCTORY:  THE  FROHT/PM  STATED     7 

havoc,  as  they  regard  it,  with  the  Old  Testament,  extended 
to  the  New,  and  with  like  results.1  On  the  other  hand, 
they  are  met  by  the  assertion  that  practically  all  competent 
scholarship — believing  and  unbelieving  alike — is  agreed  in 
the  acceptance  of  those  critical  conclusions  about  the  Old 
Testament  which  so  greatly  disturb  them.  What,  IB  the 
"storm  and  stress"  of  this  conflict  and  confusion  of  opinion, 
are  those  who  hold  fast  by  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  life 
for  their  souls  to  do?  General  assurances,  such  as  are 
sometimes  given,  that,  when  they  have  parted  with  the 
gi eater  part  of  what  they  have  been  accustomed  to  regard 
as  the  historical  substance  of  revelation,  they  will  find  the 
Bible  a  diviner  book  to  them  than  ever,  do  not  yield  the 
desired  comfort  Is  it  to  be  wondered  at  if,  in  their  per- 
plexity and  resentment,  many  who  feel  thus  should  round 
on  "Higher  Criticism"  itself,  and  uncompromisingly  de- 
nounce it  as  the  prolific  parent  of  all  the  mischief — an 
invention  of  the  Evil  One  for  the  destruction  of  the 
unwary  ? 

Nevertheless,  this  attitude  of  unreasoning  denunciation 
of  what  is  called  "  Higher  Criticism  "  is  also  manifestly  an 
extreme;  and  the  problem  we  have  to  deal  with,  if  it  is 
to  be  profitably  discussed,  requires  a  clearer  discrimination 
of  issues.  In  particular,  it  cannot  too  early  be  recognised 
that  this  is  not,  at  bottom,  a  question  simply,  as  is  too 
commonly  assumed,  between  "Higher  Critics"  and  "Non- 
Higher  Critics."  Questions  of  criticism,  indeed,  enter 
deeply — far  more  deeply,  to  our  thinking,  than  many  are 
disposed  to  allow — into  the  dispute;  but  it  is  only  to 
confuse  the  issue,  and  is  a  gratuitous  weakening  of  the 
believing  case,  not  to  recognise  that  the  real  cleft  goes 
much  deeper  viz.,  into  a  radical  contrariety  of  view  as 

/to  the  natural  or  supernatural  origin  of  the  religion  of 
Israel,  and  that  on  this  fundamental  issue  those  whom  ue 

Jcall  "critics"  are  themselves  sharply  divided,  and  found 
ranged  in  opposing  camps.  There  are,  one  must  own, 
few  outstanding  scholars  at  the  present  day  on  the  Con- 
tinent or  in  Britain — in  America  it  is  somewhat  different — 

1  As  examples  reference  may  be  made  to  the  articles  of  Schmiedel 
in  the  JSitcyc.  Biblvca,  and  to  such  works,  among  many  others,  aa 
O.  Holtxmann's  Life  of  Jesus,  and  Wernle's  Beginnings  of  Christianity, 
recently  translated.  C'f.  below,  p.  478. 


\ 


8  INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED 

who  do  not  in  greater  or  less  degree  accept  conclusions 
regarding  the  Old  Testament  of  the  kind  ordinarily  de- 
nominated critical ; 1  yet  among  the  foremost  are  many  whom 
no  one  who  understands  their  work  would  dream  of  classing 
as  other  than  believing,  and  defenders  of  revealed  religion. 
Such,  among  Continental  scholars,  recent  or  living,  are 
Delitzsch,  Kiehm,  Dillmann,  Konig,  Kittel,  Kohler,  Strack, 
Oettli,  Westphal,  Orelli;  in  Britain,  Dr.  Driver,  the  late 
Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson,  Professor  G.  A.  Smith,  and  many 
others :  all  more  or  less  "  critics,"  but  all  convinced  upholders 
of  supernatural  revelation.  This  is  not  a  reason  for  un- 
questioning acceptance  of  their  opinions ;  as  critics  it  will 
be  found  that  they  are  far  enough  from  agreeing  among 
themselves.  But  the  attitude  to  criticism  of  so  large  a 
body  of  believing  scholars  may  at  least  suggest  to  those 
disposed  to  form  hasty  judgments  that  there  is  here  a  very 
real  problem  to  be  solved ;  that  the  case  is  more  complex 
than  perhaps  they  had  imagined;  that  there  are  real 
phenomena  in  the  literary  structure  of  the  Old  Testament, 
for  the  explanation  of  which,  in  the  judgment  of  many 
able  minds,  the  traditional  view  is  not  adequate,  and  for 
which  they  seem  to  themselves  to  find  a  more  satisfactory 
solution  in  some  form  or  other  of  the  critical  hypothesis.8 

1  This  is  true  even  of  so  cautious  a  scholar  as  Professor  James 
Robertson,  of  Glasgow,  whose  works,  in  a  conservative  spirit,  have  done 
such  excellent  service.  It  is  Dillmann,  himself  a  pronounced  critic,  but 
decided  in  his  opposition  to  what  he  calls  the  "  Hegel- Vatke  "  view  of 
religious  development,  who  speaks  of  Professor  Robertson's  Early  Religion 
of  Israel  as  ' '  hitting  the  nail  on  the  head "  (Alttest.  Theol.  p.  59). 
Yet,  as  will  appear,  the  views  of  Professor  Robertson,  and  those,  say,  of 
Dr.  Driver,  on  such  subjects  as  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  the 
gradual  growth  of  legislation,  the  origin  of  Deuteronomy,  etc.,  are  not  i» 
principle  so  far  apart  as  might  appear,  though  Professor  Robertson's  results 
are  somewhat  more  positive,  and  the  accent  falls  differently.  Of.  Early 
Religion,  pp.  332  ff. ,  382,  420-27. 

3  An  interesting  example  of  how  the  leading  results  of  criticism  may  be 
accepted  by  a  devout  and  intensely  evangelical  mind  is  furnished  by  the 
Rev.  G.  H.  C.  Macgrejior,  a  favourite  teacher  of  the  "Keswick"  school. 
See  his  tribute  to  Professor  W.  R.  Smith  in  the  Biography  by  his  brother 
(p.  100),  and  the  frequent  references  to  critical  positions  in  his  Messages 
of  the  Old  Testament,  with  Preface  by  Rev.  F.  B.  Meyer.  It  is  significant 
also  that  the  productions  of  critical  writers  of  believing  tendency,  such  as 
Konig  and  Kittel,  are  now  being  translated  and  reproduced  in  conservative 
quarters,  in  refutation  of  the  theories  of  the  more  rationalistic  school. 
Cf.  below,  pp.  79,  etc.,  on  Kittel's  pamphlet,  Babylonian  Excavations  and 
Early  Bible  History,  published,  with  Preface  by  Dr.  Wace,  by  the  London 
Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge. 


INTRODUCTORY :  THE  PROBLEM  STATED  9 

The  truth  is,  and  the  fact  has  to  be  faced,  that  no  one 
who  studies  the  Old  Testament  in  the  light  of  modern 
knowledge  can  help  being,  to  some  extent,  a  "Higher 
Critic,"  nor  is  it  desirable  he  should.  The  name  has  un- 
fortunately come  to  be  associated  all  but  exclusively  with 
a  method  yielding  a  certain  class  of  results;  but  it  has 
no  necessary  connection  with  these  results.  "Higher 
Criticism,"  rightly  understood,  is  simply  the  careful  scrutiny, 
on  the  principles  which  it  is  customary  to  apply  to  all 
literature,  of  the  actual  phenomena  of  the  Bible,  with  a 
view  to  deduce  from  these  such  conclusions  as  may  be 
warranted  regarding  the  age,  authorship,  mode  of  com- 
position, sources,  etc.,  of  the  different  books ;  and  everyone 
who  engages  in  such  inquiries,  with  whatever  aim,  is  a 
"  Higher  Critic,"  and  cannot  help  himself.  The  peculiar 
distribution  of  the  names  of  God  in  Genesis,  e.g.t  is  a 
fact  to  be  recognised,  whatever  account  may  be  given  of 
it,1  and  the  collation  and  sifting  of  evidence,  with  a  view 
to  the  obtaining  of  a  satisfactory  explanation,  is,  so  far,  a 
critical  process.  There  is  nothing  in  such  scholarly  examina- 
tion of  the  Bible,  even  though  the  result  be  to  present  some 
things  in  a  new  light,  which  need  alarm  anyone.  As  the 
world  of  nature  presents  a  different  aspect  to  the  man 
of  science,  still  more  to  the  metaphysician,  from  that  which 
it  does  to  the  common  view  of  sense,  yet  is  the  same  world ; 
so  the  Bible  may  present  a  somewhat  different  aspect  to 
the  eye  of  the  trained  critical  scholar,  yet  is  the  same  Bible, 
for  edification,  devotion,  and  instruction  in  the  way  of 
righteousness. 

/      That  we  may  discharge  our  debt  to  criticism,  even  of 
/  the  rationalistic  sort,  once  for  all,  let  us  acknowledge  that, 
with  all  its  attendant  evils,  its  course  has  been  productive, 
I    under  the  providence  of  God,  of  many  benefits,  which  in 
\  large  measure  counterbalance,  if  they  do  not  outweigh,  these 
evils.     Some  of  the  positive  advances  in  its  course  it  will 
be  our  business  to  notice  hereafter.1    It  is  assuredly  not 
for  nothing  that,  for  more  than  a  century,  the  light  of  tin- 
best  European  scholarship  has  been  keenly  directed  on  every 
page,  verse,  line,  and  even  word,  of  the  sacred  record.     Many 
of  the   leaders  of    criticism,   however    defective   in   their 
apprehension   of  the   full   truth   of  revelation,  have   been 
>  See  below,  p.  198.  'Set  below,  Chap.  VII.  pp.  198 ff. 


io  INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED 

men  of  fine  literary  gifts,  wide  culture,  acute  critical  faculty, 
and  genuine  appreciation  of  the  nobler  elements  in  the 
religious  and  ethical  teaching  of  the  prophets ;  and  the 
result  of  their  labours,  as  everyone  must  own,  has  been, 
in  modern  times,  a  wonderful  freshening  of  interest  in 
the  historical,  poetical,  and  prophetical  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  an  immensely  better  understanding  of  its 
textual  meaning  and  historical  setting.  What  student 
of  Old  Testament  history  or  prophecy,  e.g.,  would  willingly 
part  with  the  aid  afforded  by  the  works  of  Ewald  ? l  What 
most  rabid  opponent  of  criticism  is  not  ready  to  own  his 
indebtedness,  on  the  linguistic  side,  to  that  dry  old 
rationalist,  Gesenius?  There  is  a  yet  greater  gain.  It 
is  not  too  much  to  say  that  one  direct  result  of  the  applica- 
tion of  the  strictest  historical  and  critical  methods  to  the 
Old  Testament  has  been  to  bring  out,  as  never  before,  the 
absolutely  unique  and  marvellous  character  of  the  religion 
of  Israel.2  With  the  best  will  in  the  world  to  explain  the 
religious  development  of  Israel  out  of  natural  factors,  the 
efforts  of  the  critics  have  resulted,  in  the  view  of  many 
of  themselves,  in  a  magnificent  demonstration  of  the 
immense,  and,  on  natural  principles,  inexplicable  difference 
between  the  religion  of  this  obscure  people  and  every 
other.8  Some  may  regard  this  as  a  small  result;  to  us 
it  presents  itself  as  something  for  which  to  be  devoutly 
grateful 

IL  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  ISSUE:  ATTITUDE  TO  THE 
SUPERNATURAL 

Still  the  deep  cleft  remains  between  what  we  have 
called  the  believing  and  the  unbelieving  views  of  the  Old 
Testament, — between  the  view  which  admits,  and  the  view 
which  denies,  the  properly  supernatural  element  in  the 
history  and  religion  of  Israel, — and  it  is  not  in  our  power, 

1  ' '  From  another  side, "  wrote  Principal  John  Cairns,  ' '  a  great  scholar 
like  Ewald  redressed  the  unfairness  of  Schlciermacher  to  the  Old  Testament, 
and,  with  many  and  great  drawbacks  of  his  own,  asserted  in  his  own  way 
the  historical  greatness  and   necessity  of  the  Bible  revelation." — Unbelief 
in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  p.  230. 

2  See  next  chapter. 

•This  is  the  argument  pursued,  on  critical  lines,  in  Lecture  IV.,  on 
"The  Proof  of  a  Divine  Kevelation  in  the  Old  Testament,"  of  Professor 
G.  A.  Smith's  Modern  Criticism,  etc. 


INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED  u 

neither  is  it  our  wish,  to  minimise  it  We  must  now  approach 
the  subject  more  closely,  and  endeavour  to  fix  with  greater 
precision  where  the  dividing-line  between  the  two  views  lies. 
In  certain  external  respects,  as  in  temple,  priesthood, 
sacrifices,  the  religion  of  Israel  necessarily  presents  a 
resemblance  to  other  religions.  To  the  eye  of  the  outward  I 
observer,  it  is  simply  one  of  the  great  historical  religions.) 
If  at  the  same  time  it  presents  differences,  this  does  not 
of  itself  establish  more  than  a  relative  distinction  between 
it  and  others.  Every  religion  has  not  only  a  certain 
resemblance  to  every  other,  arising  from  the  fact  that  it 
is  a  religion,  but  has,  moreover,  a  definite  character  or 
physiognomy  of  its  own,  resulting  from  the  different  genius 
of  the  people,  from  the  individuality  of  its  founder,  or  from 
the  circumstances  of  its  history.  If  now,  however,  we  go 
further,  and  affirm  that,  in  the  midst  of  all  resemblances, 
this  religion  of  Israel  presents  features  which  not  only 
differentiate  it  from  every  other,  but  differentiate  it  in 
such  a  way  as  to  compel  us  to  ascribe  to  it  an  origin  in 
special,  supernatural  revelation,  we  obviously  take  a  new 
step,  which  we  must  be  prepared  to  justify  by  the  most 
cogent  reasons.  It  will  not  be  enough  to  show  that  'the 
religion  of  Israel  is  a  better  religion  than  others — or  even, 
taking  into  account  its  fulfilment  in  Christianity,  that  it 
is  the  most  perfect  of  existing  religions :  for  conceivably  it 
might  be  that,  yet  have  essentially  no  higher  origin  thjin 
they ;  just  as  one  people  may  be  endowed  with  the  artistic, 
or  philosophic,  or  scientific  genius  beyond  others,  —  the 
Greeks,  for  instance,  among  ancient  peoples,  in  art  and 
philosophy, — without  its  being  necessary  to  postulate  for 
this  a  supernatural  cause.  Most  critics,  even  of  the 
rationalistic  order,  will  admit  that  Israel  had  a  genius 
for  religion,  and  was  the  classical  people  of  religion  in 
antiquity ;  will  not  hesitate  to  speak  also  of  its  providential 
mission  to  humanity,  even  as  Greece  and  Home  had  their 
vocations  to  mankind.  It  is  a  proposition  different  in  kind 
when  the  origin  of  the  religion  of  Israel  is  sought  in  a 
special,  continuous,  authoritative  revelation,  such  as  other 
peoples  did  not  possess.  Here  we  touch  a  real  contrast, 
and,  with  reservation  of  a  certain  ambiguity  in  the  word 
"  revelation," !  obtain  a  clear  issue. 

1  See  below,  pp.  19  ff. 


12    INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED 

For  now  the  fact  becomes  apparent, — there  is,  indeed, 
not  the  least  attempt  to  disguise  it, — that,  to  a  large  and 
influential  school  of  critical  inquirers — those,  moreover,  who 
have  had  most  to  do  with  the  shaping  of  the  current  critical 
theories — this  question  of  a  supernatural  origin  for  the 
religion  of  Israel  is  already  foreclosed ;  is  ruled  out  at  the 
start  as  a  priori  inadmissible.  The  issue  could  not  be 
better  stated  than  it  is  by  the  Dutch  scholar  Kuenen  in 
the  opening  chapter  of  his  work,  Tlie  Religion  of  Israel. 
The  chapter  is  entitled  "  Our  Standpoint,"  and  in  it  the 
principle  is  expressly  laid  down  that  no  distinction  can  be 
admitted  in  respect  of  origin  between  the  religion  of  Israel 

fand  other  religions.  "  For  us,"  he  says,  "  the  Israelitish 
religion  is  one  of  those  religions;  nothing  less,  but  also 
nothing  more."1  This  is,  in  the  style  of  assumption  too 
usual  in  the  school,  declared  to  be  "the  view  taken  by 
modern  theological  science." 2  "  No  one,"  he  says,  "  can 
expect  or  require  us  to  support  in  this  place  by  a  complete 
demonstration  the  right  of  the  modern  as  opposed  to  the 
ecclesiastical  view."3  It  is  an  "ecclesiastical"  view, 
it  appears,  to  assume  that  any  supernatural  factor  is 
involved  in  the  history  or  religion  of  Israel :  the  "  modern  " 
view  rejects  this.  If  any  ambiguity  could  attach  to  these 
statements,  it  would  be  removed  by  his  further  explana- 
tions, which,  in  so  many  words,  exclude  the  idea  that  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  religions  are  derived  from  "special 
divine  revelation,"  or  are  "supernatural"  in  their  origin.4 
He  puts  the  matter  with  equal  frankness  in  his  work  on 
Prophets  and  Prophecy.  "  Prophecy  is,"  he  tells  us,  "  accord- 
ing to  this  new  view,  a  phenomenon,  yet  one  of  the  most 
important  and  remarkable  phenomena,  in  the  history  of 
religion,  but  just  on  that  account  a  human  phenomenon, 

1  Religion  of  Israel,  i.  p.  5.  '  Ibid.  p.  6. 

» Ibid.  p.  7. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  5,  6.     In  a  Life  of  Kuenen  in  the  Jeicish  Quarterly  Rcrir- 
vol.  iv.,  by  Mr.  Wicksteed,  the   Dutch  "modern"  movement,  of  wh  «-li 
Kuenen  was  a  principal  leader,  is  thus  described.     "It  was  an  attempt  • 
singular  boldness  and  vigour  to  shake  tl>e  traditions  of  Christian  piety  IV.- 
from  every  trace  of  supernatunilism   and    implied   exclusiveness.  ...    It 
involved  the  absolute  surrender  of  the  orthodox  dogmatics  ;  of  the  author)'  y 
of  the  Scriptures;   of  the  divine  character  of  the  Church  as  an  extern  1 1 
institution  ;  and  of  course  it  based  the  claims  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  to  our 
affection  and  gratitude  solely  upon  what  history  could  show  that  He,  as  a 
man,  had  been,  and  had  done  for  men  "  (p.  596). 


INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED    13 

proceeding  from  Israel,  directed  to  Israel."1  And  later: 
44  So  soon  as  we  derive  a  separate  part  of  Israel's  religious 
life  directly  from  God,  and  allow  the  supernatural  or 
immediate  revelation  to  intervene  in  even  one  single 
point,  so  long  also  our  view  of  the  whole  continues  to  be 
incorrect.  ...  It  is  the  supposition  of  a  natural  develop- 
ment alone  which  accounts  for  all  the  phenomena."  *  Quite 
similar  to  the  standpoint  here  avowed  by  Kuenen  is  that 
of  a  wide  circle  of  leading  scholars  —  of  Duhm,  Well- 
hausen,  Stade,  Smend,  Gunkel,  and  a  multitude  more  in 
the  front  ranks  of  the  modern  critical  movement.  We  noted 
above  Wellhausen's  declaration  of  his  identity  in  standpoint 
with  Vatke  —  Vatke  being  a  thorough  -  going  Hegelian 
rationalist  in  the  first  half  of  last  century.  Shortly  after  in 
his  book  we  have  the  express  acknowledgment :  "  My  inquiry 
comes  nearer  to  that  of  Vatke,  from  whom  indeed  I  grate- 
fully acknowledge  myself  to  have  learned  best  and  most."  3 

This,  then,  quite  unambiguously  stated,  is  the  issue  to 
which  the  religion  of  Israel — and  with  it  Christianity,  for 
in  this  connection  the  two  very  much  stand  or  fall  together — 
is  brought  at  the  present  day.  Yet  the  contrast  drawn  by 
Kuenen  in  the  above  passage  between  the  "  modern "  and 
the  "  ecclesiastical "  view,  which  he  announces  as  the  ruling 
principle  of  his  treatment,  is,  it  need  hardly  be  said,  a 
flagrant  petitio  principii*  To  assume  beforehand,  in  an 
inquiry  which  turns  on  this  very  point,  that  the  religion 
of  Israel  presents  no  features  but  such  as  are  explicable 
out  of  natural  causes, — that  no  higher  factors  are  needed 
to  account  for  it, — is  to  prejudge  the  whole  question; 
while  to  assume  this  to  be  the  only  view  held  by  "  modern  " 
scholars — in  other  words,  to  exclude  from  this  category  men 
of  the  distinction  of  those  formerly  enumerated,  who,  with 

1  PropHett  and  Prophtey  in  Itrael,  p.  4. 

*  Ibid.  p.  585.     Dr.  John  Muir,  at  whose  instance  the  work  waa  under- 
taken, contributed  an   Introduction  to  the  English   translation.     In  the 
coarse  of  this  he  thus  states  Dr.  Kuenen's  position  :  "  Israelitish  prophecy 
waa  not  a  supernatural  phenomenon,  derived  front  divine  inspiration  ;  but 
waa  a  result  of  the  high  moral  and  religious  character  attained  by  the 
prophets  whose  writings  have  been  transmitted  to  us"  (p.  xxxvii).     From  a 
published    letter   of   Kuenen's  we    learn  the  interesting  fact,   otherwise 
attested  to  us,  that  Dr.  Muir  subsequently  changed  his  opinions,  and 
recalled  from  circulation  the  volume  he  had  been  instrumental  m  producing. 

*  Hi*.  <tf  Itr<ul,  p.  13. 

4  Cf.  the  remarks  of  Ladd,  Dcei.  qf  Sac.  Seripturt,  i.  p.  371. 


14  INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED 

their  critical  views,  take  strong  ground  on  the  subject  of 
revelation — is  to  contradict  fact,  and  degrade  the  term 
"  modern  "  to  the  designation  of  a  clique.  If,  on  impartial 
consideration,  it  can  be  shown  that  the  religion  of  Israel 
admits  of  explanation  on  purely  natural  principles,  then  the 
historian  will  be  justified  in  his  verdict  that  it  stands,  in 
this  respect,  on  the  same  footing  as  other  religions.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  fair  investigation  brings  out  a  different 
result, — if  it  demonstrates  that  this  religion  has  features 
which  place  it  in  a  different  category  from  all  others,  and 
compel  us  to  postulate  for  it  a  different  and  higher  origin,1 — 
then  that  fact  must  be  frankly  recognised  as  part  of  the 
scientific  result,  and  the  nature  and  extent  of  this  higher 
element  must  be  made  the  subject  of  inquiry.  It  will  not 
do  to  override  the  facts — if  facts  they  are — by  a  priori 
dogmatic  assumptions  on  the  one  side  any  more  than  on 
the  other.  Thus  far  we  agree  with  Kuenen,  that  we  must 
begin  by  treating  the  religion  of  Israel  exactly  as  we  would 
treat  any  other  religion.  Whatever  our  personal  con- 
victions— and  of  these,  of  course,  we  cannot  divest  our- 
selves— we  must,  in  conducting  our  argument,  place 
ourselves  in  as  absolutely  neutral  an  attitude  of  mind  as 
we  can.  We  must  try  to  see  the  facts  exactly  as  they  are 
If  differences  emerge,  let  them  be  noted.  If  the  facts  ars 
such  as  to  compel  us  to  assume  a  special  origin  for  thifc 
religion,  let  that  come  to  light  in  the  course  of  the  inquiry. 
Let  us  frankly  admit  also  that  it  is  no  slight,  recondite, 
contestable,  or  inferential  differences,  but  only  broad, 
obvious,  cumulative,  indubitable  grounds,  which  will  suffice 
as  basis  of  a  claim  to  such  special  origin.  If  such  do  not 
exist,  we  concede  that  candour  will  compel  us  to  fall  back 
on  the  naturalistic  hypothesis. 

It  is  perfectly  true  that  it  is  impossible  in  any  inquiry 
to*  dispense  with  guiding  principles  of  investigation,  and 
with  presuppositions  of  some  kind,  and  there  is  no  criticism 
on  earth  that  does  so — certainly  not  that  of  Kuenen  and 
Wellhausen.  Only  these  should  not  be  allowed  to  warp 
or  distort  the  facts,  or  be  applied  to  support  a  preconceived 
conclusion.  The  scientist  also  finds  it  incumbent  on  him 
to  "  anticipate  nature  "  with  his  interrogations  and  tentative 
hypotheses,  which,  however,  have  to  be  brought  to  the  test 

1  This  is  the  argument  in  Chap.  II. 


INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED  15 

of  experimental  verification.  We  find  no  fault  with  these 
writers,  if  they  are  persuaded  that  their  view  of  Israel's 
religion  is  the  true  one,  for  endeavouring,  with  all  the  skill 
at  their  command,  to  show  that  it  is  so.  It  is  even  well 
that  such  experiments  should  be  made.  The  case,  in  short, 
is  one  of  competing  interpretations  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and,  assuming  Israel's  religion  to  be  divine,  the  effect  of 
the  most  searching  application  of  critical  tests  can  only  be 
to  bring  out  this  divineness  into  stronger  relief.  No 
Christian,  therefore,  who  has  confidence  that  God,  who 
spoke  to  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  has  in  these  last  days 
spoken  to  us  by  His  Son,1  need  shrink  from  any  trial  to 
which  criticism  exposes  the  Bible.  It  is  the  Nemesis  of  a 
wrong  starting-point  in  every  department  of  inquiry  that 
those  who  adopt  it  find  themselves  plunged,  as  they  proceed, 
into  ever-deepening  error  and  confusion;  while  a  right 
guiding-idea  as  infallibly  conducts  to  a  view  marked  by 
simplicity  and  truth.  If  Kuenen  and  those  who  think 
with  him  are  right  in  their  first  principles,  they  will  find 
their  theory  work  out  easily  and  naturally  in  its  application 
to  the  phenomena  of  Scripture :  *  if  they  are  wrong,  their 
hypothesis  will  inevitably  break  down  under  its  own  weight, 
as  did  that  of  Baur  in  the  sphere  of  the  New  Testament 
half  a  century  ago.  The  ultimate  test  in  either  case  is 
fitness  to  meet  the  facts.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out 
that  the  result  of  a  searching  inquiry  has  been  to  produce 
in  many  minds  the  conviction  that  Israel's  religion  can  not 
be  explained  on  mere  natural  principles. 

IIL  Tire  LTTERABY  PROBLEM:  ITS  DEPENDENCE  ON 
THE  RELIGIOUS 

Thus  much  on  the  more  fundamental  part  of  our 
problem;  it  remains  to  be  asked  how  far  the  conclusions 
reached  on  this  point  affect  the  questions  raised,  in  the 
field  of  literary  discussion,  on  the  age,  authorship,  structure, 

1  Heb.  L  1. 

*  This  is  their  own  claim.  Professor  W.  R.  Smith,  e.g.,  in  his  Preface 
to  Wellhanatn,  a»y» :  "  In  the  ooarae  of  the  argument  it  appears  that  the 
plain,  natural  sense  of  the  old  history  has  constantly  been  distorted  by  the 
talse  presuppositions  with  which  we  have  been  accustomed  to  approach 
it.~-.Pref.  to  Hi*,  of  Itrwtl,  p.  riii.  The  implication  is  that  WeUhaoaen's 
riew  fires  the  "plain,  natural  sense." 


16  INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED 

and  historical  value  of  the  Old  Testament  books — especially 
of  the  Pentateuch,  or  "  five  books  "  traditionally  attributed 
to  Moses.  What  is  the  interest  of  Christian  faith  in  these 
discussions,  or  has  it  any  ?  Abstractly  considered,  of 
course,  as  already  said,1  questions  of  age,  authorship,  and 
historical  genesis  are,  in  comparison  with  those  we  have 
now  been  considering,  of  secondary  importance.  The  later 
age,  or  composite  structure,  of  a  book  is  no  necessary 
disproof  of  its  truth.  Freeman's  History  of  the  Norman 
Conquest,  e.g.,  though  written  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
does  not  give  us  a  less  just  or  vivid  idea  of  the  series  of 
events  to  which  it  relates,  than  the  contemporary  monkish 
chronicles,  etc.,  on  which  it  is  based.  The  age,  authorship, 
and  simple  or  composite  character  of  a  book  are  matters 
for  investigation,  to  be  determined  solely  by  evidence,  and 
it  is  justly  claimed  that  criticism,  in  its  investigation  of 
such  subjects,  must  be  untrammelled:  that  faith  cannot 
be  bound  up  with  results  of  purely  literary  judgments. 
It  will  be  urged,  further,  that,  as  we  have  admitted,  the 
denial  of  the  supernatural  in  the  Old  Testament  history 
or  religion  in  no  way  necessarily  follows  from  any  theory 
of  the  dates  or  relations  of  documents.  All  this  is  true; 
still  the  matter  is  not  quite  so  simple  as  this  rather 
superficial  way  of  presenting  the  case  would  picture  it. 
There  is,  as  was  before  hinted,  a  very  close  connection 
between  critical  premises  and  critical  results,  and  it  is 
necessary  in  the  present  discussion  that  this  connection 
should  be  kept  carefully  in  view. 

It  has  already  been  explained  that  it  is  no  part  of  the 
design  of  these  pages  to  cast  discredit  on  the  function  of 
criticism  as  such.  It  is  not  even  contended  that  the  critical 
theories  at  present  in  vogue  are  constructed  wholly  in  the 
interest  of  rationalism:  far  from  that.  If  they  were,  we 
may  be  sure  that  so  many  believing  men  would  not  be 
found  accepting  or  advocating  them.  To  account  for  such 
acceptance  we  must  assume  that  they  are  felt  by  candid 
minds  to  answer  in  some  degree  to  real  facts,  to  rest  on  a 
basis  of  real  evidence,  to  afford  an  explanation  of  real 
phenomena,  to  possess  a  plausibility  and  reasonableness 
which  constrain  a  genuine  assent.*  On  the  other  hand,  it 
can  as  little  be  doubted  that  the  critical  hypothesis,  in  the 

1  See  above,  p.  5.  *  See  below,  Chap.  VII.  pp.  195-6. 


INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED    17 

form  into  which  it  has  gradually  crystallised,  shows,  in  many 
of  its  features,  a  marked  dependence  on  rationalistic  pre- 
suppositions. There  is  no  gainsaying  the  fact  that,  histori- 
cally.it  was  in  rationalistic  workshops, mainly,  that  the  critical 
theory  was  elaborated,  and  that,  from  this  circumstance,  a 
certain  rationalistic  impress  was  stamped  upon  it  from  the 
first.1  From  Eichhorn  and  those  who  followed  him — Von 
Bohlen,  Vatke,  De  Wette,  and  the  rest — the  critical  treat- 
ment of  the  Pentateuch  received  a  "  set "  in  the  direction  of 
naturalism  which  it  has  to  some  extent  retained  ever  since. 
Most  of  all  is  it  true  of  the  type  of  theory  which  is  at 
present  the  dominant  one — the  theory  which,  to  indicate 
the  line  of  its  origin,  we  might  describe  as  the  Vatke-Graf- 
Kuenen-Wellhausen-Stade  one — that  it  is  rationalistic  in 
its  basis,  and  in  every  fibre  of  its  construction.  Yet  it 
is  this  theory  which,  chiefly  through  the  brilliant  advocacy 
of  Wellhausen,  has  for  the  time  won  an  all  but  universal 
recognition  in  critical  circles  on  the  Continent  and  in  English- 
speaking  countries.  Its  arguments  are  adopted,  its  con- 
clusions endorsed,  its  watchwords  repeated,  with  almost 
monotonous  fidelity  of  iteration,  by  a  majority  of  scholars 
of  all  classes — in  Churches  and  out  of  Churches,  High 
Church,  Broad  Church,  and  Low  Church,  sceptical  and 
believing.  This  says  much  for  the  plausibility  of  the 
theory,  but  it  suggests  also  a  grave  problem.  The  critical 
hypothesis  must,  of  course,  be  considered  on  its  merits ;  but 
is  there  not,  on  the  face  of  it,  a  supreme  improbability  that 
a  theory  evolved  under  the  conditions  we  have  described 
should  be,  in  that  form,  a  theory  adequate  to  Christian  faith, 
or  with  which  Christian  faith  can  ultimately  be  content? 
Is  it  such  a  theory  as  Christian  faith  would  ever  have 
evolved  from  its  own  presuppositions  ?  Can  it  ever  be  purged 
of  its  rationalistic  leaven,  and  adapted  to  the  use  of 
the  Christian  Churches,  without  a  complete  re-casting  on 

1  The  statement  of  the  late  Dr.  Green  may  need  qualification  aa  respects 
later  scholars,  but  is  in  the  main  true  of  the  originators  of  the  critical 
movement:  "The  development  of  critical  hypotheses  inimical  to  the 
genuinm.-ss  and  the  truth  of  the  book*  of  the  Bible  has  from  the  beginning 
Been  in  the  hands  of  those  who  were  antagonistic  to  supernatural  religion  ; 
whose  interest  in  the  Bible  was  purely  literary,  and  who  refused  to  recognise 
its  claims  as  an  immediate  and  authoritative  revelation  from  God." — Higher 
Criticism,  p.  177.  Of.  Dr.  Cheyne  on  the  indebtedness  of  the  German  critical 
movement  to  English  Deism  (Foundrrt  of  Criticism,  pp.  1,  2).  See  also 
below,  p.  58. 

a 


1 8  INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED 

principles  which  are  the  direct  antitheses  of  those  which 
obtain  in  the  schools  in  which  it  originated  ?  We  take 
leave  to  doubt  it.  Christian  scholars  are  no  doubt  entirely 
serious  in  their  acceptance  of  its  conclusions,  but  there 
must  grow  up,  we  are  persuaded — if  there  is  not  already 
growing  up — a  perception  of  the  incompatibility  of  their 
belief,  as  Christians,  in  a  historical  revelation,  culminating 
in  the  Incarnation,1  with  a  set  of  results  wrought  out  on 
the  basis  of  a  purely  naturalistic  view  of  Israel's  history 
and  religion — which,  in  fact,  as  will  be  discovered,  reduces 
the  bulk  of  that  history  to  ruins ! 2 

Criticism,  it  is  granted,  must  be  untrammelled ;  also,  the 
results  complained  of  do  not  necessarily  follow  from  the 
reigning  critical  hypothesis.  This  last  remark  we  must  admit 
to  be  true,  for  part  of  our  own  argument  in  a  future  chapter 
is  built  upon  it.3  Still  it  cannot  well  be  denied  that,  if  all 
the  results  do  not  necessarily  follow  from  the  theory,  a 
good  many  of  them  do  very  easily  and  naturally  follow; 
that  the  way  is  logically  open  for  them,  as  it  would  not  be 
on  another  theory ;  and  that  the  reason  why  the  stronger 
conclusion  is  not  drawn  often  is  simply  that  the  believing 
critics  are  less  logical  than  their  fellows.  A  theory  may 
not  always  be  followed  to  its  conclusions,  where  these, 
nevertheless,  very  logically  follow.  It  could  not  be  other- 
wise, when  regard  is  had  to  the  presuppositions  under  the 
influence  of  which  the  theory  was  formed.  Everything,  as 
Rothe  said,  can  be  laid  hold  of  by  two  handles ;  and  where  the 
case  is  one,  as  before  remarked,  of  competing  interpretations 
of  the  same  facts,  while  it  is  true  as  ever  that  both  will  not 
be  found  equally  suitable  to  the  facts,  and  that  no  ingenuity 
can  make  them  so,  the  room  left  for  the  play  of  subjective  con- 
siderations is  still  very  large.  In  this  connection,  questions 
of  age  and  authorship  are  far  from  being  always  of  secondary 
moment.  The  true  inwardness  of  many  of  these  will  appear 
after  in  the  course  of  our  discussion.  It  will  be  forced 
upon  us  when  we  observe  how  frequently  the  dating  does 
not  arise  from  purely  literary  considerations,  but  is  deter- 
mined by  critical  assumptions,  or  by  congruity  with  an 
a  priori  scheme  of  development,  and  when  we  see  the  use 
to  which  the  dating  is  put,  viz.,  to  lower  the  dates  of  other 

1  See  Ottley  b«low,  p.  22.  »  CL  Chap.  III.  pp.  66  tf. 

»  Chap.  III. 


INTRODUCTORY :  THE  PROBLEM  STATED  19 

writings,  or  subvert  the  credibility  of  the  history.1    TheA 
late  date  of  the  documents  composing  the  Pentateuch,  e.g., 
may  be  employed  to  support  the  contention  that  the  narra- 
tive  of  the  Pentateuchal  books  is  wholly,  or  in  great  part,  \ 
legendary ;  the  post-exilian  date  of  the  Levitical  laws  may  \ 
be  used  to  destroy  the  connection  of  the  laws  with  Moses ; 
the  low  date  assigned  to  the  psalms  may  be  really  a  corollary 
from  a  particular  theory  of  Israel's  religious  development,  / 
and  may  be  used,  in  tuni,  to  buttress  that  theory.    In  other 
ways  the  literary  criticism,  not  intentionally  perhaps,  but 
really  and  effectively,  may  be  put  at  the  service  of  the 
theory.     Books  may  be  divided   up,  or  texts  manipulated 
and  struck  out,  till  the  writing  is  made  to  speak  the  language 
which  the  critic  desires.     The  hyper-analysis  of  documents 
may  result  in  the  dissipation   of  everything  of  grandeur, 
not  to  say  of  consistency  and  truthfulness,  in  a  narrative. 
Whether  this  is  an  over-colouring  of  the  character  of  the 
critical  procedure,  in  the  hands  of  many  of  its  representatives, 
will  be  better  judged  of  in  the  sequel 

IV.  ATTITUDE  OP  CRITICISM  TO  "REVELATION" 

A  little  may  be  said  before  closing  this  chapter  on  a  line 
of  remark  sometimes  met  with,  to  the  effect  that  the 
contrast  we  have  sought  to  indicate  between  the  believing 
and  the  "  modern  "  ways  of  regarding  the  Old  Testament  is, 
after  all,  less  important  than  it  seems.  Partly,  it  may  be 
urged,  we  have  unduly  narrowed  the  scope  of  the  words 
"  revelation  "  and  "  supernatural " ;  partly,  we  have  not  done 
justice  to  the  high  views  of  God  and  of  His  providential 
government  which  even  rationalistic  critics  allow  that  the 
prophets  of  Israel  ultimately  attained.  Professor  W.  R. 
Smith,  in  his  lectures  on  The  Prophets  of  Israel,  may  be  taken 
as  representing  this  latter  standpoint.  Referring  to  that 
"large  and  thoughtful  school  of  theologians"  which  yet 
"refuses  to  believe  that  God's  dealings  with  Israel  in  the 
times  before  Christ  can  be  distinguished  under  the  special 
name  of  revelation  from  His  providential  guidance  of 
other  nations,"  he  observes  that  "in  one  point  of  view 
this  departure  from  the  usual  doctrine  of  Christians  is 
perhaps  less  fundamental  than  it  seems  at  first  sight  to  be." 

1  See  Appendix  to  Chap.  X.  pp.  378-9. 


20  INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED 

He  goes  on :  "  For,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  not  and  cannot 
be  denied  that  the  prophets  found  for  themselves  and  their 
nation  a  knowledge  of  God,  and  not  a  mere  speculative 
knowledge,  but  a  practical  fellowship  of  faith  with  Him, 
which  the  seekers  after  truth  among  the  Gentiles  never 
attained  to." *  The  idea  seems  to  be  that,  these  high  views 
of  God  and  of  religion  in  the  prophets  being  acknowledged 
to  be  there,  it  is  not  necessary  to  burden  the  argument  with 
too  curious  questions  as  to  how  they  got  to  be  there, — 
whether  by  supernatural  revelation,  or  in  the  way  in  which 
spiritual  truth  is  grasped  by  thinkers  of  other  nations. 
Enough  that  we  now  have  them. 

This  appears  to  us,  however,  to  be  very  fallacious 
reasoning ;  the  more  that  Professor  Smith  admits  that  behind 
"  there  appears  to  lie  a  substantial  and  practical  difference 
of  view  between  the  common  faith  of  the  Churches  and  the 
views  of  the  modern  school,"  z  and  proceeds  to  give  very 
cogent  reasons  for  assuming  a  more  direct  and  special  revela- 
tion.8 Not  only,  on  the  view  described,  is  the  prophet's 
own  consciousness  of  the  source  of  his  message  denied,  and 
the  higher  character  of  his  knowledge  of  God  left  without 
adequate  explanation ;  but  the  results  in  the  two  cases  are 
not  the  same.  The  ideas  of  the  prophets  on  God,  on  the 
naturalistic  hypothesis,  cannot  be  allowed,  at  best,  to  rise 
higher  than  man  is  capable  of  attaining  by  the  reflection  of 
his  own  mind  on  his  natural  and  providential  environment, 
i.e.,  to  certain  general  truths  about  God's  existence,  unity, 
ethical  character,  and  universal  providence.  Even  this,  it 
might  be  shown,  assumes  much  more  than  the  premises  of 
the  system  will  warrant,  and,  like  the  "  natural  religion  "  of  the 
eighteenth  century  Deism,  implies  an  unacknowledged  debt 
to  revelation.  In  any  case  it  does  not  yield  an  authoritative 
revelation  of  God's  purpose,  and  saving  will  for  man,  derived 
immediately  from  Himself :  it  lacks,  even  in  what  it  does 
yield,  in  certitude ;  and  in  both  respects  falls  short  of  what 
is  demanded  by  the  full  Christian  faith.  It  is  further 
apparent  that  on  such  a  view  justice  cannot  be  done  to  the 
earlier  stages  of  the  religion  of  Israel.  The  temptation  ot 
the  critic  who  proceeds  on  these  lines — if,  indeed,  he  has 
any  alternative — is  to  lower  the  character  of  the  religion  to 
suit  the  conditions  of  its  hypothetical  development ;  to  give 

1  Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  9.  *  Ibid.  p.  10.  »  Ibid.  pp.  11,  12. 


INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED  21 

a  mean  view  of  its  origin  and  early  manifestations ;  and  to 
contend  against  the  recognition  of  a  divine  redemptive 
purpose  manifesting  itself  from  the  first  in  its  history. 

With  respect  to  the  usage  of  the  words  "  revelation  " 
and  "supernatural,"  we  have  gladly  acknowledged  that 
there  are  few  scholars  of  the  present  day — among  serious 
investigators  probably  none — who  would  deny  that  Israel 
had  a  unique  vocation,  or  would  refuse  to  recognise,  in  some 
degree,  a  "providential  guidance"  in  its  history.  Thus 
Duhm  makes  the  quite  general  statement  that,  objectively 
regarded,  there  is  no  alternative  to  "the  necessity  of 
accepting  a  providential  guidance  in  the  actual  stages  of  the 
development  of  religion."1  Most,  however,  in  recent  years 
go  further,  and  freely  use  the  word  "  revelation  "  to  express 
the  peculiarity  of  Israel's  religion.  Thus  Gunkel,  one  of  the 
most  radical  of  critics,  says :  "  The  conviction  remains  irre- 
fragable that,  in  the  course  of  the  Israelitish  religion,  the 
power  of  the  living  God  reveals  itself";2  and  elsewhere: 
"  Israel  is,  and  remains,  the  people  of  revelation."  *  When 
the  matter  is  inquired  into,  however,  it  is  found  that  the 
term  "  revelation  "  is  here  used  in  a  sense  which  does  not  in 
reality  cover  more  than  Kuenen's  "  natural  development,"  or 
Duhm's  "  providential  guidance."  That  which,  on  the  human 
side,  is  natural  psychological  development,  is,  on  the  divine 
•ide,  interpreted  as  God's  revelation  of  Himself  to  man.4 

Whichever  formula  is  employed,  the  advocates  of  this 
type  of  theory  find  themselves  in  an  obvious  difficulty. 
God's  "guidance"  is  recognised,  but  the  guidance  is  of  so 
faulty  a  character  that  it  results  in  a  set  of  ideas  as  to  a 
*upmiatural  government  of  the  world,  and  su/vrnatural 
dealings  of  God  with  Israel,  wholly  alien  to  the  actual  state 
of  the  facts  as  the  critics  represent  it  If  "  revelation  "  is 
affirmed,  the  revelation  is  held  to  be  compatible  with  an 
abundance  of  error  and  illusion,  and  results,  again,  on  the 
part  of  the  prophets,  in  a  total  misreading  of  the  past 
history  of  the  nation,  and  in  views  of  God,  His  purpose,  and 
living  relations  with  men,  which,  if  true,  would  cut  the 

1  Thfol.  d.  Prophet**,  p.  89. 

'  Sehdpfwtg  vnd  Chaos,  p.  118. 

*  Itmul  **d  Babylonian,  pp.  37-38. 

4  Gunkel  says:  "The  history  of  rerelation  transacts  itself  among  men 
according  to  the  same  psychological  laws  an  erery  other  human  *Tcnt."— 
Ibid.  p.  87.  Cf.  the  whole  passage,  pp.  84-38. 


22    INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED 

ground  from  under  the  rationalistic  theory.  The  elements, 
in  either  case,  which  the  critics  permit  themselves  to  extract 
from  the  prophetic  teaching  do  not,  as  said,  rise  above  a 
vague  theism,  and  the  announcement  of  an  ethical  ideal. 
"  Revelation,"  in  the  specific,  supernatural  sense,  is  not,  and 
cannot  be,  admitted  on  this  view,  either  in  the  process  or  in 
the  goal.  Not  in  the  process,  for  there  is  nothing  there, 
confessedly,  transcending  natural  conditions;  and  not  in 
the  goal,  for  Jesus,  with  all  these  writers,  while  reverenced 
as  the  highest  type — for  us  the  pattern — of  spiritual  religion, 
is  nothing  more  : l  least  of  all  is  He  the  Son  of  God  incar- 
nate. Our  distinction  between  natural  and  supernatural  in 
the  history  of  Israel,  therefore,  remains.  Even  with  regard 
to  those — and  they  are  many — who  do  in  some  form  admit 
"  supernatural "  revelation,  it  cannot  be  too  constantly  borne 
in  mind  that  it  is  not  any  and  every  kind  of  admission  of 
the  supernatural  which  satisfies  the  Christian  demand.  It 
is  Christ  Himself  in  the  full  revelation  of  His  glory  as  the 
only-begotten  Son  who  is  the  touchstone  and  measure  of 
the  supernatural  for  faith ;  and  only  that  view  of  revelation 
in  Israel  is  adequate  which  finds  its  necessary  culmination 
in  His  Person  and  redemption.2 

It  is  now  proper  that  a  sketch  should  be  given  of  the 
general  course  to  be  followed  in  the  discussions  in  the 
succeeding  chapters. 

First,  a  brief  preliminary  survey  will  be  taken  of  the 
witness  which  the  Old  Testament  itself  bears,  in  its 
structure,  and  in  the  uniqueness  of  its  history  and  religion, 
to  its  own  authority  and  inspiration  as  the  record  of  God's 
revelation  to  His  ancient  people  (Chap.  II.).  Thus  far 
critical  questions  are  held  over. 

1  See  on  Kuenen  above,  p.  12. 

J  Ottley  says :  "  If  Jesus  Christ  were  merely  the  last  and  most  eminent 
of  a  line  of  prophets,  there  would  be  more  to  be  said  for  that  familiar  type 

purely 
pie  not 
tipernatural 

revelation  imparted  to  elect  souls  at  different  epochs  in  Israel  a  history, 
but  in  fetishism,  or  totemism,  or  polytheism,  whence  by  a  slow  process  of 
purely  natural  evolution  it  passed  to  its  final  stage  in  ethical  mono- 
theism."— Aspects  of  O.T.,  p.  13.  Ottley,  in  this  work,  with  his  belief  in 
the  Incarnation  and  in  miracle,  admits  too  much  not  to  admit  more.  His 
positive  Christian  beliefs  fit  badly  into  the  frame  of  Wellhausenism. 


INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED    23 

The  next  four  chapters  will  be  devoted  to  the  consider- 
ation of  the  question — How  far  is  this  view  which  the  Old 
Testament  gives  of  itself  affected  by  the  results  of  modern 
criticism?  At  this  stage  the  ordinary  analysis  of  the 
Hexateuch  (JE,  D,  P) 1  will  be  provisionally  accepted,  and 
the  aim  will  be  to  show  that,  even  on  this  basis,  the 
essential  outlines  of  the  patriarchal  and  Mosaic  history 
(Chaps.  III.,  IV.),  and  the  outstanding  facts  of  the  religion 
and  institutions  of  the  Old  Testament  (Chaps.  V.,  VI.),  are 
not  sensibly  affected, — that  they  are  not,  and  cannot  be, 
overturned.  The  way  being  thus  cleared  for  consideration 
of  the  critical  hypothesis  on  its  own  merits,  the  four 
succeeding  chapters  are  occupied  with  a  somewhat  careful 
examination  of  that  hypothesis  in  its  fundamental  positions 
and  several  parts.  In  this  examination  attention  is  con- 
centrated on  the  points  which  are  thought  to  be  most 
crucial*  These  chapters  (VII.-X.)  set  forth  the  reasons 
which  prevent  us  yielding  our  assent  to  the  current  critical 
hypothesis,  except  under  conditions  which  essentially 
transform  its  character  and  bearings.  The  chapters  may, 
if  the  reader  likes,  be  viewed  as  setting  forth  our  "  sceptical 
doubts  "  on  that  hypothesis,  though  in  many  respects  they 
are  really  more  than  doubts.  It  is  sought  to  be  shown  how 
precarious  and  arbitrary  are  many  of  the  grounds  on  which 
the  critical  hypothesis  rests,  and  how  strong  are  the  reasons 
for  challenging  its  principal  postulates,  and  some  of  what 
are  regarded  as  its  most  "  settled  "  results.  This  is  argued 
particularly  in  respect  of : 

1.  The  alleged  distinction  of  the  documents  J  and  £, 
and  the  dates  assigned  to  these  (Chap.  VII.). 

2.  The  origin  of  Deuteronomy  in  the  age  of  Josiah  or 
Manasseh  (Chap.  VIIL). 

3.  The    post-exilian   origin  of    the    so-called    Priestly 
Code  (Chaps.  IX.,  X.).     Chap.  IX.  deals  with  the  Code  and 
Chap.  X.  with  the  document. 

The  question  of  the  divine  names  is  discussed  in 
Chap.  VII. 

With  respect  to  the  Priestly  writing  (P),  it  is  contended 
that,  whilst  it  is  distinct  in  stylistic  character  from  JE,  there 

1  For  explanation  of  these  symbol*  a*  Chan.  III.  pp.  65-66,  and  Chap. 
VII.  PP.  196  ff. 

'  Cf.  Appendix  at  end  of  ohaptei . 


24    INTRODUCTORY:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED 

is  no  evidence  of  P  ever  having  existed  as  an  independent 
document;  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  stands  in  the  closest 
relations  with  the  other  elements  in  the  narrative,  and  is 
most  appropriately  regarded  as  (at  least  in  Genesis)  the 
"  framework  "  in  which  the  JE  narrative  is  set,  with  slight 
working  over  of  the  latter.  Eeasons  are  given  for  carrying 
back  both  books  and  legislation  to  a  much  earlier  date  than 
the  critical  hypothesis  allows,  and  for  recognising  in  both 
a  substantially  Mosaic  basis. 

A  glance  is  taken  at  the  later  historical  books  in  an 
Appendix  to  Chap.  X. 

The  conclusions  reached  in  the  preceding  discussions 
receive  corroboration  in  a  chapter  on  the  bearings  of 
Archaeology  on  the  Old  Testament  (Chap.  XL). 

A  closing  chapter  deals  with  the  age  of  the  Psalter, 
the  reality  of  predictive  prophecy,  and  the  progressiveness 
of  divine  revelation  (Chap.  XI L). 


APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  I 
CBUCIAL  POINTS  m  THE  CRITICAL  THEORY 

IT  is  interesting  to  note  what  the  critics  themselves 
regard  as  the  crucial  points  in  their  theory.  Here  are 
a  few  utterances  on  the  subject. 

Westphal  says:  "We  shall  take  Deuteronomy  as 
Ariadne's  thread  in  the  labyrinth  into  which  the  historical 
problem  of  the  Pentateuch  introduces  us." l 

Delitzsch  says:  "Since  then  (Grafs  time)  the  Book 
of  Ezekiel  has  become  the  Archimedean  point  on  which  the 
Pentateuchal  criticism  has  planted  itself,  and  from  which  it 
has  lifted  off  its  hinges  the  history  of  worship  and  literature 
in  Israel  as  hitherto  accepted."  * 

Wellhausen  says :  "  The  chapters  xL-xlviii.  (in  Ezekiel) 
are  the  most  important  in  his  book,  and  have  been  called 
by  J.  Orth,  not  incorrectly,  the  key  of  the  Old  Testament."  * 

Smend  also  says:  "The  decisive  importance  of  this 
section  for  the  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  was  first  re- 
cognised by  George  and  Vatke.  It  has  been  rightly  called 
the  key  of  the  Old  Testament"* 

Wellhausen  in  another  place  says:  "The  position  of 
the  Levites  is  the  Achilles  heel  of  the  Priestly  Coda"  * 

Elsewhere  he  emphasises  the  centralisation  of  the  cultus 
as  containing  his  whole  position.  "  I  differ  from  Graf/'  he 
says,  "chiefly  in  this,  that  I  always  go  back  to  the 
centralisation  of  the  cultus,  and  deduce  from  it  the 
particular  divergences.  My  whole  position  is  contained 
in  my  first  chapter"  (on  "The  Place  of  Worship.")* 

Kuenen  also  has  his  Achilles  heel  Speaking  of  Graf's 
original  division  of  the  priestly  history  and  legislation  (see 

1  Sounet  du  Pent.  ii.  p.  zzir.          *  Luthardt's  Zttixkrtft,  1880,  p.  379. 

•  Hut,  &  /trad,  p.  421.  «  Euehitl,  p.  812. 

•  Hi*,  of  Itntl,  p.  167.  •  Ibid.  p.  868. 


26  APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  I 

below,  p.  200),  he  says :  "  I  saw  clearly  that  his  division 
of  the  Grundschrift  was  the  Achilles  heel  of  his  whole 
hypothesis :  the  solution  of  Graf  could  not  be  the  true  one : 
it  went  only  half-way." l 

In  the  argument  in  the  present  book  special  weight 
will  be  found  to  bt  attached  to  the  following  facts : — 

1.  The  "  pre-prophetic  "  character  of  J  and  E,  as  involved 
in  their  admitted  priority  to  Amos  and  Hosea. 

2.  The  admittedly  "  parallel "  character  of  J  and  E,  and 
their  marked  stylistic  resemblance. 

3.  The  admitted  priority  of  J  and  E,  and  of  the  "  Book 
of  the  Covenant,"  to  Deuteronomy. 

4.  The  admitted  priority  of  J  and  E  to  P  (in  reversal 
of  the  older  view),  and   the  fact  that  P  is  throughout 
parallel  to,  and  presupposes,  JE  (Wellhausen). 

5.  The  admission  by  many  critics  (e.g.t  Driver,  Baudissin, 
Kyle)  of  the  priority  of  the  Levitical  collection  known  as  the 
"  Law  of  Holiness  "  to  EzekieL 

The  turning  points  in  the  discussion  are  those  indicated 
in  the  text : — 

1.  Are  J  and  E  two  documents,  or  one  ? 

2.  The  Josianic  origin  of  Deuteronomy. 

3.  The  post-exilian  origin  of  the  Levitical  Code. 

The  critical  positions  on  these  three  points  are  traversed 
and  the  rejection  of  them  is  shown  to  involve  as  its  onlj 
tenable  alternative  (middle  views  as  Noldeke's  and  Dill- 
mann's  being  cut  out  by  the  Wellhausen  polemic)  thi 
essential  Mosaicity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

1  T\eol.  Tijdtchr.  1870,  p.  410. 


CHAPTER  II 

TTbc  $lo  ^Testament  from  its  own  point  of  IWcw 


"  Israel  has  the  idea  of  teleology  as  a  kind  of  soul." — DORNEB. 

"Behind  it  all  is  the  mystery  of  race  and  of  selection.  It  is  an  ultimata 
fact  in  the  history  and  government  of  the  world,  this  eminent  genius  of 
one  tiny  people  for  religion.  We  know  no  more  :  and,  in  M.  Kenan's  own 
terms,  the  people  was  'selected,' just  as,  in  words  more  familiar,  Israel  is 
'  the  chosen  people.' " — ANDREW  LANG. 

"When  we  say  that  God  dealt  with  Israel  in  the  way  of  special  revela- 
tion, and  crowned  His  dealings  by  personally  manifesting  all  His  grace 
and  truth  in  Jesus  Christ  the  incarnate  Word,  we  mean  that  the  Bible 
contains  within  itself  a  perfect  picture  of  God's  gracious  relations  with 
man,  and  that  we  have  no  need  to  go  outside  the  Bible  history  to  learn 
anything  of  God  and  His  saving  will  towards  us, — that  the  whole  growth 
of  the  true  religion  up  to  its  perfect  fulness  is  set  before  us  in  the  record 
of  God's  dealings  with  Israel  culminating  in  the  manifestation  of  Jesus 
Christ"— W.  R.  SMITH. 

"  If  the  first  three  chapters  of  Genesis  are  taken  out  of  the  Bible,  it  is 
deprived  of  the  terminus  a  quo :  if  the  last  three  chapters  of  the  Apocalypse 
are  taken  away,  it  is  deprived  of  the  terminus  ad  quern. "— 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM  ITS  OWN  POINT 
OF  VIEW 

OUB  subject  of  study,  then,  is  this  book  of  history,  of  laws, 
of  prophecy,  of  psalms,  of  wisdom  literature,  which  we  call 
the  Old  Testament.  Before,  however,  entangling  ourselves 
in  the  thorny  brakes  into  which  the  critical  study  of  this 
older  collection  of  Scriptures  conducts  us,  it  is  desirable 
that  we  should  look  for  a  little  at  the  book  by  itself,  in 
the  form  in  which  we  have  it,  and  allow  its  own  voice 
to  be  heard  on  its  character  and  place  in  the  economy  of 
revelation. 

There  are  obvious  advantages  in  this  course.  No  slight 
is  intended  to  be  cast  on  criticism :  but  it  may  be  gravely 
questioned  whether  this  constant  discussion  going  on  about 
the  Bible, — this  minute  dissection  and  analysis  of  it,  and 
perpetual  weighing  of  its  parts  in  the  nice  scales  of  a  critical 
balance, — has  not  at  least  one  harmful  effect,  that,  viz.,  of 
coming  between  men  and  the  devout,  prayerful  study  of 
the  Bible  itself,  out  of  which  alone  can  grow  that  sense 
of  ite  harmony  and  proportion,  and  experience  of  its  saving 
and  sanctifying  power,  which  yield  the  best  proof  of  its 
divine  origin.  The  dissecting  chamber  is  necessary;  but 
it  is  not  exactly  the  best  place  for  acquiring  a  sense  of  the 
symmetry  and  beauty  of  the  living  human  body,  or  for 
cultivating  reverence  for  it.  It  is  hardly  less  difficult  to 
grow  into  a  spiritual  appreciation  of  Scripture,  when  we 
are  not  permitted  to  make  acquaintance  with  a  Biblical 
book  till  it  has  first  been  put  upon  the  critic's  table,  and 
there  sliced,  severed,  and  anatomised,  till  all  the  palpitating 
life  has  gone  out  of  it,  and  we  are  left,  as  chief  result,  with 
dry  lists  of  the  sections,  verses,  or  parts  of  verses,  supposed 


30  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

to  belong  to  the  different  narrators  or  editors ! l  The  Bible 
has  a  character  and  power  of  impression  which  belong  to 
it  as  a  living  book ;  it  is  right  that  these  should  have  justice 
done  to  them  before  the  process  of  disintegration  begins. 

We  would  here  indicate,  therefore,  at  the  outset,  what 
precisely  it  is  we  propose  to  do,  and  what  we  do  not  propose 
to  do,  in  the  present  chapter.  We  propose,  then,  treat- 
ing the  Old  Testament  for  the  time  as  part  of  the  general 
organism  of  Scripture,  to  take  the  Bible  just  as  it  is, — just 
as  it  lies  before  us, — and  to  ask  what  kind  of  a  book  it  is, 
what  sort  of  an  account  it  gives  of  itself,  and  what  kind  of 
impression  of  its  origin  and  source  grows  out  of  this  first- 
hand acquaintance  with  it.  We  shall  have  little  or  nothing 
to  say  at  this  stage  of  theories  of  criticism — these  will  come 
after ;  nothing  of  questions  of  age,  authorship,  or  genuine- 
ness; little  of  theories  of  revelation  or  inspiration.  There 
may  be  gain,  for  once,  in  leaving  these  things  for  a  short  while 
aside,  and  permitting  the  Bible  to  speak  for  itself — to  utter 
its  own  unconstrained  testimony — to  produce  on  the  mind 
its  own  immediate  effect,  without  reference  to  outside 
controversies.  The  Bible  may  prove  in  this  way,  as  it  has 
often  proved  before,  to  be  its  own  best  witness,  and  it  is 
this  aspect  and  evidence  of  its  divineness  which,  it  seems  to 
us,  it  is  necessary  at  the  present  time,  in  the  difficulty  and 
uncertainty  in  which  many  are  involved,  most  of  all  to 
emphasise. 

I.  THE  ORGANIC  UNITY  OF  THE  BOOK 

We  take  up  the  Bible,  then,  in  the  way  suggested,  and 
the  first  thing,  we  think,  that  must  strike  us  in  connec- 
tion with  it,  is,  that  this  book  is,  in  a  remarkable  sense, 
a  unity.  From  another  point  of  view,  of  course,  the  Bible 
is  not  one  book,  but  a  collection  of  books :  as  Jerome  named 
it,  "  a  divine  library."  It  comes  to  us  "  by  divers  portions 
and  in  divers  manners." a  The  writings  that  compose  it  are 
spread  over  at  least  a  thousand  years.  Yet  the  singular 
fact  is  that,  when  these  writings  are  put  together,  they 

1  In  illustration,  the  reader  may  consult,  e.g.,  the  tabular  summations 
which  are  the  chief  outcome  of  the  (otherwise  able)  article  on  " Exodus"  in 
Hastings'  Diet,  of  the  Bible  (i.  pp.  806  0*.).  The  sensation  is  like  chewing 
glass. 

J  Heb.  L  1. 


ITS  OWN  POINT  OF  VIEW  31 

constitute,  structurally,  one  book ;  make  up  a  "  Bible," 1  as 
we  call  it,  with  beginning,  and  middle,  and  end,  which 
produces  on  the  mind  a  sense  of  harmony  and  completeness. 
This  peculiarity  in  the  Bible,  which  is  not  essentially 
affected  by  any  results  of  criticism — since,  indeed,  the  more 
the  critic  divides  and  distributes  his  material,  the  outcome 
in  the  book  as  we  have  it  is  only  the  more  wonderful  * — is 
best  illustrated  by  contrast  For  Christianity  is  not  the 
only  religion  in  the  world,  nor  is  the  Bible  the  only 
collection  of  sacred  books  in  existence.  There  are  many 
Bibles  of  different  religions.  The  Mohammedan  has  his 
Koran ;  the  Buddhist  has  his  Canon  of  Sacred  Scriptures ; 
the  Zoroastrian  has  his  Zenda vesta;  the  Brahman  has  his 
Vedas.  On  the  basis  of  this  very  fact,  comparative  religion 
groups  a  number  of  religions  together  as  "  book- religions." 
These  sacred  books  are  made  accessible  to  us  by  reliable 
translations,  and  we  can  compare  them  with  our  own 
Scriptures.  But,  not  to  speak  of  the  enormous  superiority 
of  the  Bible  to  these  other  sacred  books,  even  in  a  literary 
respect, — for  few,  we  presume,  capable  of  judging,  would 
think  of  comparing  even  the  noblest  of  the  Babylonian  or 
Yedic  hymns,  or  of  the  Zoroastrian  Gathas,  in  power  or 
grandeur,  with  the  Hebrew  psalms;  or  would  liken  the 
few  really  lofty  passages  on  God  in  the  Koran  with  the 
sustained  sublimity  of  the  Hebrew  prophets ;  or  would  draw 
a  parallel  between  the  wild  extravagances  of  the  Buddhist 
Lalita  Vistara  and  the  simplicity,  beauty,  and  self-restraint 
of  the  Christian  Gospels,3 — we  would  fix  attention  only  on 
this  one  point — the  contrast  in  respect  of  unity.  We  seek 
in  vain  in  these  ethnic  Scriptures  for  anything  answering  to. 
this  name.  The  Koran,  for  instance,  is  a  miscellany  of  dis- 
jointed pieces,  out  of  which  it  is  impossible  to  extract  any 
order,  progress,  or  arrangement  The  114  Suras  or  chapters 
of  which  it  is  composed  are  arranged  chieHy  according 
to  length — the  longer  in  general  preceding  the  shorter.4 

1  Originally  Biblia,  "The  Books,"  then  "in  the  thirteenth  century,  by 
•  happy  solecism,"  says  Weatoott,  "  the  neuter  plural  came  to  be  regarded  as 
a  feminine  singular,  and  'The  Books'  became,  by  common  consent,  'The 
Book,'  iu  which  form  the  word  has  passed  into  the  languages  of  modem 
Europe."— BibU  in  the  Church,  p.  6. 

*  8e«  below,  Chap.  HI. 

»  See  Not*  A  on  the  Bible  and  other  Sacred  Books. 

4  They  were  originally,  as  given  by  Mohammed,  written  on  pieces  of 
•tone,  bone,  leather,  palm-leaves,  or  whatever  material  was  available,  and 


32  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

It  is  not  otherwise  with  the  Zoroastrian  and  Buddhist 
Scriptures.  These  are  equally  destitute  of  beginning, 
middle,  or  end.  They  are,  for  the  most  part,  coUections 
of  heterogeneous  materials,  loosely  placed  together.  How 
different  everyone  must  acknowledge  it  to  be  with  the 
Bible !  From  Genesis  to  Revelation  we  feel  that  this  book 
is  in  a  real  sense  a  unity.  It  is  not  a  collection  of 
fragments,  but  has,  as  we  say,  an  organic  character.  It 
has  one  connected  story  to  tell  from  beginning  to  end; 
we  see  something  growing  before  our  eyes;  there  is  plan, 
purpose,  progress;  the  end  folds  back  on  the  beginning, 
and,  when  the  whole  is  finished,  we  feel  that  here  again,  as 
in  the  primal  creation,  God  has  finished  all  His  works,  and, 
behold,  they  are  very  good.  This  is  a  very  external  way,  it 
may  be  granted,  of  looking  at  the  Bible,  yet  it  is  a  very 
important  one.  It  puts  the  Bible  before  us  at  the  outset 
as  a  unique  book.  There  is  nothing  exactly  resembling 
it,  or  even  approaching  it,  in  all  literature.1  To  find  its 
explanation,  it  compels  us  to  go  behind  the  fragmentariness 
of  the  parts,  to  the  underlying  unity  of  thought  and  purpose 
in  the  whole.  The  unity  of  the  Bible  is  not  something 
factitious — made.  It  grows  out  of  the  unity  of  the  religion 
and  the  history,  and  points  to  that  as  its  source. 

II.  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW 

To  deepen  our  impression  of  this  unity  of  the  Bible,  and 
at  the  same  time  carry  us  a  step  further  into  the  heart  of 
our  subject,  we  notice  again  that  the  Bible  consists  of  two 
«  parts — an  Old  Testament  and  a  New, — and  would  observe 
lww  the  second  of  these  parts  folds  back  upon  the  first.  The 
Old  Testament  is  one  group  of  writings,  mostly  in  Hebrew, 
and  the  New  Testament  is  another  group  of  writings,  in 
Greek,  with  centuries  between  them.  Yet  how  manifestly 
is  the  latter  the  counterpart  and  completion  of  the  former ! 
The  argument  from  prophecy  has  often  been  overdriven,  and 
may  easily  be  run  into  exaggeration  and  triviality ;  but  if 

thrown  into  a  chest ;  thence,  after  Mohammed's  death,  they  were  taken  out 
and  copied.  Some  were  preserved  only  by  memory. 

1  "  No  other  literature  is  linked  into  one  whole  like  this,  instinct  with  one 
spirit  and  purpose,  and,  with  all  its  variety  of  character  and  origin,  moving 
forward  to  an  unseen  yet  certain  goal." — Eirkpatrick,  Divine  Library  of 
the,  O.T.,  p.  92. 


ITS  OWN  POINT  OF  VIEW  33 

we  take  the  Bible's  own  way  of  putting  it,  "  The  testimony 
of  Jesus  is  the  spirit  of  prophecy," l  it  is  difficult  for  any 
candid  mind  to  deny  that  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament 
fulfils  itself  in  the  New.  This,  again,  is  a  result  largely 
independent  of  critical  discussions.  Take,  for  example,  that 
wonderful  picture  of  the  suffering  Servant  of  Jehovah  in  the 
53rd  chapter  of  Isaiah,  which  the  Church  has  always, 
and  rightly,  regarded  as  Messianic.2  Dismissing  for  the 
moment  all  critical  considerations  as  to  age,  authorship, 
or  original  reference,  let  anyone  steep  his  mind  in  the 
contents  of  that  chapter,  then  read  what  is  said  about  Jesus 
in  the  Gospels,  and,  as  he  stands  under  the  shadow  of  the 
Cross,  say  if  there  is  not  the  most  complete  correspondence 
between  the  two.  In  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  alone  in  all  history, 
but  in  Him  perfectly,  has  this  prophecy  found  a  fulfil- 
ment. The  meekness,  the  pathos  of  undeserved  suffering, 
the  atoning  function,  the  final  triumph,  will  suit  no 
other.8 

The  result  is  not  different  if  we  enlarge  our  view  to  the 
consideration  of  the  religion  of  Israel  as  a  whole.  The 
religion  of  Israel  has  been  called  a  religion  of  hope.  Its 
face  is  always  to  the  future.4  The  system  of  things  in  the 
Old  Testament  presents  itself  prevailingly  as  something 
provisional,  temporary,  incomplete.  There  is  growth  in  the 
Old  Testament — from  the  patriarchal  stage  to  the  Mosaic ; 
from  the  Mosaic  to  the  prophetic ;  but  it  is  like  the  plant 
developing  from  stalk  to  bud,  and  from  bud  to  flower,  there 
is  a  final  stage  yet  to  come — that  of  the  ripened  fruit.* 

1  Rev.  xix.  10. 

•Cf.  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson,  O.T.  Prophecy,  pp.  411,  427,  445.  "There 
is  not  one,"  he  says,  "  of  the  better  class  of  critics  who  does  not  recognise 
the  pertinence  of  the  question,  In  whom  are  the  features  of  the  Servant  to 
be  recognised  t  or  who  does  not  give  the  same  answer  to  the  question  as 
the  orthodox  theologian  "  (p.  411). 

•  Bleek,  quoted  by  Dr.  Davidson,  says :  "  What  the  prophet  here  says  as 
yet  in  general,  in  reference  to  the  Servant  as  such,  as  it  were  t'n  abttraeto, 
has  received  it*  complete  fulfilment  in  the  One,  who  was  the  only  holy  and 
perfectly  sinless  among  the  human  race,  and  therefore  the  only  one  whose 
Bufferings  had  such  a  character  that,  not  being  due  to  His  own  individual 
transgression  in  any  way,  they  can  be  regarded  as  serving  for  the  atonement 
of  the  sins  of  men."— O.T.  Prophecy,  p.  411  ;  of.  Orelli,  O.T.   Piiij^isf. 
pp.  387  ff. 

4  E.g.,  Gen.  xii.  8. 

*  Dillmann  nays  :  "This  religion  of  the  ancient  people  of  Israel  every- 
where points  beyond  itself,  exhibiting  itself  as  a  work  begun,  which  lacks 
its  final  perfection,  and  so  compels  UK  in  the  nature  of  the  case  to  apprehend 


34  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

The  old  covenant  is  to  give  place  to  a  new,  —  a  more 
inward  and  spiritual, — when  the  law  of  God  shall  be  written 
on  men's  hearts ; l  the  old  national  forms  are  to  break  up, 
and  Jehovah  is  to  become  the  God  of  the  whole  earth ; 2  in 
their  deepest  abasement  and  humiliation  the  people  of  Israel 
never  lose  the  assurance  that  from  them  the  light  is  to  go 
forth  which  shall  illumine  the  darkness  of  the  whole  world 
— that  the  Gentiles  shall  come  to  their  light,  and  kings  to 
the  brightness  of  their  rising.8  These  things  are  not  to  be 
brought  about  without  instrumentality,  and  here  we  find, 
trait  after  trait,  the  figure  of  the  Messiah  shaping  itself, — 
the  King  who  is  to  reign  in  righteousness,4  the  Immanuel- 
Child,  with  the  wondrous  fourfold  name,  who  is  the 
guarantee  for  the  perpetuity  of  the  throne  and  kingdom  of 
David,6  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  who  is  to  bear  the  people's 
sins,6  the  Branch  who  is  to  build  again  the  temple  of 
Jehovah.7  The  Spirit  will  be  poured  out  upon  all  flesh,8 
and  the  kingdom  of  God  will  come. 

Now,  let  anyone  open  his  New  Testament,  and  say  if 
there  is  no  counterpart  to,  and  completion  of,  all  this  there. 
Something  higher,  grander,  diviner,  no  doubt,  than  even  the 
prophets  could  imagine ;  yet  bringing  to  pass  in  every 
essential  respect  all  that  they  foretold,  all  that  lay  in  the 
bosom  of  that  old  covenant  waiting  its  realisation.9  May 
we  not  say  that  the  Christian  Church  itself  is  a  living  proof 
of  the  truth  of  these  predictions  ?  Is  it  not  Israel's  God 
we  worship  ?  Is  it  not  Israel's  faith  that  beats  in  our 
hearts  ?  Israel's  Messiah  we  trust  in  for  salvation  ?  Israel's 
privilege  to  which  we  are  admitted  ?  Every  time  we  sing 
these  old  Hebrew  psalms,  which  are  to  this  hour  so  mar- 
vellous an  expression  of  the  faith,  and  hope,  and  aspirations 
of  the  soul  seeking  after  God,  do  we  not  declare  that  we 

it  in  relation  to  Christianity,  as  that  in  which  essentially  it  is  per* 
footed. "—Altfest.  Theol.  p.  8. 

1  Cf.  Deut  xxx.  6  ;  Jer.  xxxi.  31-4  ;  xxxii.  39,  40  ;  Ezek.  xi.  19,  20  ; 
xxxvi.  26,  27. 

1  Num.  xiv.  21  ;  Isa.  xlv.  22,  23  ;  Zeph.  ii.  11  ;  Hag.  ii.  6,  7. 

•  Isa.  lx.,  etc.  4  Isa.  xxxii.  1  ;  xxxiii.  15,  16. 

•  Isa.  vii.  14  ;  viii.  8,  10  ;  ix.  6,  7  ;  cf.  Mic.  v.  2,  3. 
'  Isa.  liii. 

7  Zech.  iii.  8 ;  vi.  12  ;  cf.  Isa.  iv.  2  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  5. 

'  Joel  ii.  28,  29.  On  these  passages  see  the  works  on  O.T.  Prophecy  by 
Davidson,  Delitzsch,  Riehtn,  Orelli,  etc.,  and  cf.  below,  Chap.  XII.  p.  460. 

•  Cf.  the  suggestive  sections  in   Riehm's  Mess.  Prophecy  (E.T.  1876), 
pp.  83  ff. 


ITS  OWN  POINT  OF  VIEW  35 

belong  to  the  same  spiritual  city  as  the  men  who  wrote 
them  ? l  When,  accordingly,  the  New  Testament  gathers  up 
all  these  types  and  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
sees  them  fulfilled  in  Christ,-— calls  Him,  for  example,  the 
"  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  >he  sin  of  the  world,"  * 
the  "  chief  corner  stone,  elect,  precious,"  which  God  has  laid 
in  Zion,*  identifies  Him  with  that  Servant  of  whom  it  is 
declared  that  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  was  upon  Him,  to 
preach  good  tidings  to  the  meek,  to  bind  up  the  broken- 
hearted, to  proclaim  liberty  to  the  captives,  and  the  opening 
of  the  prison  to  them  that  are  bound,6 — do  we  not  feel  that 
it  is  justified  in  so  doing?  When  the  writer  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  sees  all  the  old  rites  and  institutions 
glorified  in  the  light  of  the  new  religion,  and  represents 
them  as  types  and  shadows  which  have  fulfilled  their 
function,  and  pass  away  now  that  the  reality  has  come,* — do 
we  not  recognise  that  he  is  giving  us  the  truest  rationale  of 
that  old  economy  ?  When  the  Book  of  Revelation  tells  of 
Paradise  restored,  and  figures  the  tree  of  life  growing  in  the 
midst,7  do  we  not  feel  that  the  end  of  revelation,  in  very 
truth,  looks  back  to  its  beginning,  and  that  here  the  ruin  of 
Eden  is  repaired,  and  the  curse  of  man's  first  disobedience, 
which  "  brought  death  into  our  world,  and  all  our  woe," 
finally  abolished  ?  There  is  again  nothing  mechanical  in 
this  relation  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  The  connec- 
tion is  vital,  not  external,  but  is  on  that  account  all  the 
more  wonderful,  and  without  parallel 

III.  TELEOLOGICAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  HISTORY 

We  have  seen  that  this  surprising  unity  which  char- 
acterises the  Bible  is  only  to  be  explained  by  going  back 
to  the  history  and  the  religion  which  the  Bible  makes  known 

» Cf.  Pi.  Ixxxvii.  (R.V.). 

1  Kuenen  allows  that  this  fulfilment  was  claimed  by  Jesus  and  His 
disciples,  and  says  "  it  is  impossible  for  as  to  form  too  high  an  estimate  of 
the  importance  of  the  application  of  these  pas*ages." — Proptutt  and  /Vopfesjb 
pp.  622  IF.  Bat  he  holds  that  the  interpretation  is  unwarranted.  Yet  how 
•ingalar  that  these  representations  should  admit  of  "  being  merged  in  one 
grand  figure,"  if  nothing  of  the  kind  was  intended. 

•  John  L  29.  «  1  Pet  ii.  6  ;  cf.  Isa.  xxriii.  10. 

•  Isa.   JxL    1  ;  cf.   Luke  ir.  18.     It  is  Jesus  Himself  who  make*  ibis 
identification. 

•  Heb.  ix.  »  ;  x.  1 .  »  Bar.  ii.  7  ;  xxiL  S. 


36  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

to  us,  in  which  the  real  mystery  or  wonder  lies.  The  Bible 
is  a  unique  book,  because  it  is  the  record  and  literature  of  a 
unique  religion.  We  turn  first  to  the  history,  and  here  are 
at  once  arrested  by  what  may  be  described  as  its  Ideological 
character.  "  Israel,"  says  Dorner,  "  has  the  idea  of  teleology 
as  a  kind  of  soul."1  Its  history,  that  is,  is  dominated  by 
the  idea  of  purpose.  It  is  this  which  gives  unity  to  the 
history  and  to  the  books  which  contain  it.  The  purpose 
is  not  always  consciously  apprehended  by  the  actors  in  the 
events ;  still  less,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  is  it  something 
which  exists  only  in  the  minds  of  the  authors  of  the  books, 
and  is  by  them  put  into  the  history.2  It  lies  in  the  facts 
themselves,  and  reveals  itself  with  increasing  clearness  as 
the  history  proceeds,  till  at  length  the  mystery  "  hid  from 
all  ages  and  generations"3  is  fully  unveiled  in  Christ 
and  His  salvation.  This  teleological  character  of  the  history 
is  recognised  by  every  writer  of  genuine  insight  into  the 
spiritual  nature  of  Israel's  religion,4  and  is  allowed  to  stamp 
the  religion  with  a  uniqueness  which  absolutely  distinguishes 
it  from  every  other. 

But  the  fact  lies  on  the  face  of  the  history  itself.  This 
is  readily  seen  by  a  glance  at  the  development.  The  basis 
is  laid  in  the  account  of  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  of 
the  culmination  of  that  creation  in  man.  From  this  the 
narrative  goes  on  to  recount  man's  fall,  and  to  trace  the 
development  of  the  race  in  the  lines  of  piety  and  impiety 
through  Seth  and  Cain  respectively,  till  the  growing 
corruption  of  the  world  brings  upon  it  the  judgment  of 
the  flood.  A  new  start  is  made  in  the  covenant  with 
Noah,  from  whom  the  repeopling  of  the  world,  and  the 
distribution  of  its  races,  proceed.  The  growing  spread  of 
godlessness,  and  lapse  of  the  nations  into  heathenism,  leads 
to  the  next  step  in  the  unfolding  of  the  divine  purpose  in 
the  call  of  Abraham,  and  in  the  promises  made  to  him  and 

1  Syst.  of  Doct.  i.  p.  274. 

1  See  this  discussed  below,  Chap.  III.  pp.  62-64. 

»  Col.  i.  26  ;  cf.  Eph.  iii.  3,  9. 

4  Schultz,  e.g.,  in  his  O.T.  Theol.  p.  2,  says  :  "  We  mean  to  describe, 
not  various  forms  of  religion,  which  have  merely  an  external  connection 
of  place  or  time,  but  a  single  religion  in  the  various  stages  of  its  develop- 
ment, which  stages  consequently  have  an  organic  inner  connection.  Hence 
in  such  a  presentation  each  member  must  be  properly  linked  to  its  fellow. 
A  common  ligament  of  living  growth  must  bind  all  the  parts  together. 
The  presentation  must  be,  not  merely  historical,  but  genetic.' 


ITS  OWN  POINT  OF  VIEW  37 

to  his  seed.  The  promise  of  blessing,  beginning  in  Eden,1 
afterwards  restricted  to  the  line  of  Shem,2  is  now,  in  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  definitely  associated  with  this  patriarch 
and  his  posterity — not,  however,  ip  the  spirit  of  a  narrow 
particularism,  but  with  a  view  to  the  ultimate  blessing  of 
mankind.8  Already  appears  at  this  early  stage  of  the  history 
that  law  of  election, — of  gracious  purpose  working  along  a 
defined  line  for  an  ultimate  larger  good, — which  is  so  marked 
a  feature  of  the  history  throughout  The  line  of  promise 
still  further  narrows  itself — for  limitation  and  definiteness 
here  are  essential  to  success — in  Abraham's  sons,  in  the 
election  of  Isaac,  not  Ishmael ;  in  Isaac's  sons,  in  the  choice 
of  Jacob,  not  Esau ;  in  Jacob's  sons,  in  the  designation  of 
Judah  as  the  royal  tribe.4  The  patriarchal  age,  with  its 
renewals  of  the  covenant,  its  prophetic  announcements, 
its  singular  providences,  its  preparation  in  the  elevation  of 
Joseph  for  the  descent  into  Egypt,  ends  with  the  removal 
to  that  country,  where  the  people  hud  room  and  opportunity 
to  multiply,  till,  with  change  of  dynasty,  the  fiery  trial  over- 
took them  by  which  they  were  finally  welded  into  a  nation. 
The  Mosaic  age,  which  succeeds  the  patriarchal,  is 
closely  linked  with  the  preceding  through  the  promises 
to  the  fathers,  of  which  it  brought  the  fulfilment.  Allusion 
need  only  be  made  to  the  series  of  events  which  marks  this 
beginning  of  Israel's  national  life — the  birth  and  call  of 
Moses,  the  Exodus,  the  covenant  at  Sinai,  the  discipline  of 
the  wilderness,  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  the  land  before 
promised  to  Abraham.  The  vicissitudes  and  disorganisation 
of  the  time  of  the  Judges  and  of  Samuel  lead  up  to  the  rise 
of  the  monarchy,  and  to  the  new  hopes  and  promises  attached 
to  the  line  of  David.6  The  rending  of  the  kingdom,  and 
the  backslidings  and  often  wholesale  lapses  into  idolatry 
of  the  people,  might  seem  to  portend  the  ruin  of  these 
hopes,  and  the  frustration  of  the  divine  purpose.  But  the 
singular — the  unexampled — thing  in  the  history  of  this 
people  is  that  the  purpose  of  God  in  the  history  is  not 

1  Gen.  iii.  15.  Ottlej  Mja  that  this  passage  "strikes  at  the  outset  of 
redemptive  history  the  note  of  promise  ana  of  nope." — Hist,  of  Htbt.  p.  11. 
Cf.  Driver,  Oenen$,  pp.  40,  67. 

*  Gen.  iz.  26.  *  Gen.  xii.  8 ;  of.  xriii.  18  ;  xxii.  18. 

4  Gen.  xlix.  10.  On  the  interpretation,  cf.  Driver,  Otnttit,  pp.  385, 
410-14  ;  Orelli,  O.T.  Prophecy,  pp.  118-23,  eto. 

•  2  Sam.  vii. 


38  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

defeated  by  outward  failure;  rather,  it  is  in  the  depth  of 
adversity  and  seeming  defeat  that  it  asserts  itself  most 
clearly,  enlarges,  purities,  and  spiritualises  itself,  and  is 
never,  in  the  prophets,  more  confident  of  victory  than  when, 
to  the  eye  of  sense,  the  cause  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
appears  hopelessly  lost. 

We  need  not  pursue  this  proof  of  a  teleological  character 
in  the  history  of  Israel  further.  The  same  result  would  be 
obtained  if,  starting  with  the  completed  revelation,  we 
looked  at  the  history  retrogressively.  Not  only  does  the 
Gospel  of  the  kingdom  which  Jesus  proclaimed  unfold 
itself  from  the  bosom  of  the  Jewish  community,  but  the 
whole  consciousness  of  Jesus  roots  itself  in  the  older  revela- 
tion,— presupposes  it,  moves  in  the  circle  of  its  ideas,  claims 
to  be  the  fulfilment  of  it.  It  was  not  the  prophets  only  that 
Jesus  came  to  fulfil,  but  "  the  law  and  the  prophets," l — the 
whole  Old  Testament  revelation.  If  we  go  back  to  the 
prophetic  age,  we  find  the  prophets  as  uniformly  basing 
their  message  on  the  covenant  relation  of  Israel  to  Jehovah 
which  the  earlier  history  attests.2  The  national  conscious- 
ness of  Israel  connects  itself  unalterably  with  Moses  and 
the  Exodus,  and  with  the  laws  and  statutes  it  then  received 
from  Jehovah ;  yet  with  not  less  distinctness  it  declares  that 
the  national  stage  in  its  history  was  not  the  earliest,  but 
was  preceded  by  the  patriarchal,  and  by  the  covenants  with 
the  fathers.  Israel's  God  was  the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac, 
and  of  Jacob.  The  starting-point  in  its  covenant  history 
was  not  Moses,  but  Abraham.8  There  is  thus  displayed 
throughout  the  whole  of  these  Old  Testament  Scriptures 
a  historical  continuity,  a  firmness  and  coherence  of  texture, 
a  steadily  evolving,  and  victorious,  self-fulfilling  purpose, 
which  has  nowhere,  even  in  the  remotest  degree,  its  parallel 
in  the  history  of  religions. 

IV.  UNIQUE  IDEAS  OF  THE  RELIGION 

Thus  far  we  have  looked  at  the  book  and  at  the  history 
of  Israel's  religion,  and  have  found  in  both  a  character  for 

1  Matt  v.  17. 

1  E.g.,  Amos  ii.  4,  10  ;  iii.  1,  2;  Hos.  viii.  1  ;  xi.  1-4;  Mic.  vi.  4  ; 
Isa.  i.  2  ;  v.  1-7  ;  xi.  16  ;  li.  1,  2,  10  ;  Jer.  ii.  17,  etc. 

1  Isa.  xxix.  22  ;  li.  1  ;  Jer.  xxxiii.  26  ;  Ezek.  xxxiiL  24  ;  Mic.  vii.  20. 
See  on  this  below,  pp.  94  ff. 


ITS  OWN  POINT  OF  VIEW  39 

which  no  proper  parallel  can  be  discovered  elsewhere:  we 
now  advance  a  stage  further,  and  inquire  whether  the 
religion  itself  does  not  present  a  similar  uniqueness. 
Only  those  who  have  not  truly  entered  into  its  spirit,  or 
appreciated  its  relation  to  other  forms  of  belief,  will 
dispute  the  proposition  that  the  religion  of  Israel  is 
unique.  It  is  not  the  fact  of  its  uniqueness,  but  whether 
the  uniqueness  is  of  such  a  kind  as  to  require  us  to 
postulate  a  special,  supernatural  cause  for  its  explanation, 
which  is  matter  of  controversy.  We  shall  see  immedi- 
ately what  the  Old  Testament  itself  has  to  say  on  that 
point. 

1.  A  unique  religion  will  display  its  character  equally 
by  what  it  has  and  by  what  it  wants.  There  are,  on  the 
negative  side,  many  things  absent  in  Israel's  religion  which 
we  should  expect  to  find  there,  if  it  was  simply  one  among 
other  religions.  Resemblances,  as  before  remarked,  in  out- 
ward respects,  there  necessarily  are.  In  the  religion  of  Israel 
we  have  a  sanctuary,  priesthood,  altars,  sacrifices,  ritual — 
much  more  that  has  its  counterpart  in  other  cults.  When, 
however,  from  this  outward  vesture  of  the  religion,  we 
come  to  its  heart  and  essence,  it  is  not  the  resemblances, 
but  the  contrasts,  which  impress  us.  We  are  not  disposed 
to  be  stinted  in  our  acknowledgment  of  the  better 
elements  in  the  ethnic  religions ;  but,  whatever  place  may 
be  given  to  these,  the  fact  remains  that,  in  their  historical 
forms,  the  higher  elements  are  hardly  visible,  while  the 
foreground  is  occupied  by  an  idolatrous  worship,  an  ex- 
travagant and  often  immoral  mythology,  customs  and 
usages  debasing  to  the  last  degree.  We  need  only  recall 
the  spirit-worship  and  magic  of  Babylonia;  the  animal- 
worship  and  ancestor-worship  of  Egypt ;  the  stone-worship, 
and  tree-worship,  and  serpent-worship,  the  human  sacrifices, 
the  lustful  rites,  the  self-immolations,  which  enter  so  deeply 
into  most  non-Biblical  religions.  How  great  the  contrast 
when  we  come  to  the  religion  of  Israel!  We  do 
not  enter  into  details  at  present,  for  we  shall  have  to 
return  to  the  subject  in  dealing  with  the  very  different 
theory  of  the  critical  school,  that  Israel  began  practically 
on  the  same  level,  and  with  much  the  same  beliefs  and 
practices,  as  its  heathen  neighbours,  and  only  late  in  its 
history,  in  the  days  of  the  prophets,  attained  to  higher 


40  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

conceptions.1  It  will  not  be  contended,  at  least,  that  this  is 
the  view  of  things  that  meets  us  on  the  face  of  the  religion. 
Few  will  be  bold  enough  to  maintain  that  tree- worship, 
stone-worship,  serpent-worship,  image-worship,  and  similar 
superstitions,  are  conspicuous  features  on  the  Bible  page. 
These  things,  we  grant,  or  some  of  them,  are  found  in  the 
Bible  history — in  patriarchal  and  Mosaic  times  in  sparse 
traces ;  later,  in  times  of  general  declension,  when  the 
people  fell  away  into  the  idolatries  and  vices  of  the  nations 
around  them,  more  abundantly;  but  they  are  no  proper 
part  of  Israel's  religion,  and  are  invariably  resisted, 
denounced,  and  condemned,  as  apostacy  from  Jehovah. 
Idolatry  is  sternly  condemned  in  the  oldest  code  of  laws :  * 
divination,  necromancy,  consulting  with  familiar  spirits, 
are  prohibited;3  the  instances  in  which  contrary  practices 
appear,  as  Rachel's  teraphim,*  Micah's  images,6  Saul's  con- 
sulting of  the  witch  of  Endor,8  etc.,  are  sporadic  and 
occasional,  and  appear  either  as  survivals  of  older  super- 
stitions, or  as  violations  of  fundamental  principles  of 
the  religion,  such  as  are  met  with  in  every  age  and 
country.7 

2.  We  do  not  dwell  longer  on  these  negative  features 
of  Israel's  religion,  but  turn  to  the  positive  side,  in  which, 
naturally,  the  clearest  proof  of  its  uniqueness  must  lie. 
Here  it  may  be  sufficient  to  fix  attention  on  three  great 
fundamental  ideas,  in  which,  perhaps,  the  contrast  between 
it  and  other  forms  of  religion  is  most  distinctly  to  be  traced. 

(1)  We  take,  first,  what  meets  us  on  the  surface — the 
monotheism  of  this  Israelitish  religion.  This  of  itself  is 
much,  if  we  think  of  the  polytheism  and  idolatry  which 
everywhere  else  overspread  the  earth.  We  look  to  the 
religions  of  ancient  Babylonia,  Assyria,  and  Egypt,  or 

1  See  Chips.  IV.  p.  86 ;  V.  pp.  133  ff.          •  Ex.  xx.  4,  5  ;  xxiii.  4. 

»  Deut  xviii.  9-14. 

4  Gen.  xxxi.  84  (stolen  from  her  father  Laban,  ver.  30). 

•  Judg.  xvii. 

8 1  Sam.  xxviii.  The  fact  that  Saul  had  pat  down  all  witches  and 
wizards  is  proof  of  the  law. 

7  Euenen  objects  that  the  current  conceptions  of  Israel's  religion  are 
drawn,  not  from  the  facts,  but  from  the  general  reviews  of  the  Hebrew 
historians. — Nat.  Religions,  etc.  (Hibbert  Lectures),  pp.  69  ff.  Professor 
Robertson  aptly  replies  that,  if  we  turn  to  these  reviews,  "  they  are  precisely 
in  the  tone  of  the  prophets  Amos  and  Hosea,  the  very  earliest  witnesses  to 
whom  we  are  allowed  to  appeal." — Early  Rel.  of  Israel,  p.  116. 


ITS  OWN  POINT  OF  VIEW  41 

to  those  of  Israel's  own  kinsfolk  and  neighbours  in  and 
around  Palestine ; 1  and,  while  recognising  higher  elements 
in  these  religions,  ever,  however,  becoming  dimmer  as  we 
recede  from  their  source,  we  find  them,  one  and  all,  in 
historical  times,  grossly,  growingly,  and  incurably,  poly- 
theistic and  corrupt  In  Judah  alone  was  God  known. 
In  no  single  case,  moreover,  was  this  polytheism  ever  thrown 
off  by  inherent  effort  Even,  therefore,  were  the  theory, 
favoured  by  modern  critics,  that  "ethical  monotheism" 
was  only  attained  by  Israel  in  the  age  of  the  great  prophets, 
allowed  to  be  established,  the  fact  would  still  remain  to  be 
accounted  for  that  Israel,  alone  of  all  nations,  did  attain  to 
it,  and  became  the  teacher  of  the  rest  of  the  world.  We 
do  not,  however,  give  our  adherence  to  the  view  that 
this  monotheism  of  the  religion  of  Israel  was  a  late  develop- 
ment of  the  time  of  the  prophets.  As  will  be  shown  more 
fully  in  a  subsequent  chapter,2  the  Old  Testament  knows  of 
no  time  when  the  people  of  Israel  were  without  the  know- 
ledge of  the  one  God  as  the  Creator  and  providential  Euler 
of  the  whole  world.  Monotheism  is  not  the  doctrine  of 
one  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  not  of  another.  Its 
oldest  parts  —  those  which  the  critics  allow  to  be  the 
oldest  * — have  this  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God  as  well  as 
the  latest  In  these  oldest  parts,  we  have  as  fundamental 
ideas  the  creation  of  the  world  by  God,  the  unity  of  the 
human  family  as  descended  from  a  first  pair,  made  by  God, 
the  destruction  of  the  whole  race  by  a  flood  on  account  of 
sin,  the  promises  to  Noah,  embracing  the  whole  earth,4 
a  new  descent  and  distribution  of  the  race  from  Noah,  the 
recognition  of  God  by  Abraham  as  the  Judge  of  the  whole 
earth,5 — all  laying  the  foundation  for  the  call  of  Abraham, 
the  covenants  with  the  patriarchs,  the  growth  of  Israel  into 
*  nation,  its  redemption  from  bondage,  and  formation  into 
%  people  for  God's  glory.  While,  therefore,  it  is  not 
contended  that  there  was  no  advance  in  the  ideas  of  God, — 
no  deepening,  purifying,  or  spiritualising  of  these  ideas, 
— from  the  days  of  Abraham  and  Moses,  it  may  very  con- 
fidently be  maintained  that,  in  the  Old  Testament  as  we 

1  As  reapecU  the  Semitic  people*,  cf.  Professor  0.  A.  Smith's  Mudtm 
Oriticim,  pp.  111-29. 

1  Chap.  V.  pp.  123  ff.  •  The  J  and  £  histories,  see  pp.  05-M. 

«  Gen.  Tiii.  20,  21 1  ix.  •  Gen.  xriii.  26. 


42  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

have  it,  the  unity  of  God  is  present  as  a  basal  conception 
from  the  first. 

(2)  The  monotheism  of  Israel,  however,  is  not  the  whole, 
is  not  even  the  main  thing,  in  this  religion.  It  is  not  so 
much,  after  all,  in  its  declarations  of  what  God  is  in 
Himself,  or  of  the  unity  of  God,  as  in  what  it  tells  us  of 
the  relations  of  God  to  man,  and  of  His  purposes  of  grace  to 
the  world,  that  the  peculiarity  of  the  religion  of  the  Old 
Testament  lies.1  No  religion  exalts  man  so  high  as  the 
religion  of  the  Bible,  in  representing  him  as  made  in  the 
image  of  God,  and  capable  of  knowing,  loving,  and  serving 
God ;  and  no  religion  abases  man  so  low,  in  picturing  the 
depths  of  his  apostacy  from  God,  and  his  inability  to  deliver 
himself  from  the  guilt  and  bondage  in  which  that  apostacy 
has  involved  him.  But  it  is  the  glory  of  the  religion  of 
the  Bible — this  in  both  Old  Testament  and  New — that  over 
against  the  picture  it  gives  of  the  developing  sin  and  cor- 
ruption of  the  race,  there  appears  almost  from  its  first 
page  the  developing  plan  and  purpose  of  God  for  man's 
salvation.2  The  history  of  the  Bible  is  essentially,  what 
Jonathan  Edwards  called  it,  "  the  history  of  redemption." 
If  the  malady  is  aggravated,  the  remedy  provided  is 
adequate  to  cope  with  it,  even  on  the  Bible's  own  showing 
of  its  evil  In  Paul's  language,  "  Where  sin  abounded,  grace 
did  abound  more  exceedingly."3  This  again  brings  us  to 
the  idea  of  teleology,  but  now  shows  us  more  precisely  in 
what  the  teleology  consists.  It  is  the  unfolding  in  its  suc- 
cessive stages  of  God's  gracious  counsel  for  man's  salvation.4 
It  is  this  which  gives  its  unity  to  the  Bible ;  which  is  the 
golden  thread  running  through  history,  psalm,  prophecy, 
Gospel,  epistle,  and  binding  all  together.  There  is  nothing, 
again,  which  even  remotely  resembles  this  in  any  other 
religion.  The  partial  exception  is  the  Zoroastrian,  which, 
in  a  dim,  mythological  way,  has  the  idea  of  a  conflict  of  the 
good  principle  with  the  evil,  and  of  a  final  triumph  of  the 

1  Cf.  Kirkpatrick,  Divine,  Library,  p.  93. 

*  See  below,  pp.  61-62.  »  Rom.  T.  20. 

4  Cf.  Ottley,  Aspects  of  O.T.,  pp.  55  ff. :  "The  Old  Testament  is  to  b« 
studied,  in  the  first  place,  as  a  record  of  the  history  of  redemption.  It 
contains  the  account  of  a  continuous  historical  movement  of  which  the 
originating  cause  was  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  aim  the  salvation  of  the 
human  race."  On  p.  93  :  "In  the  Pentateuch  and  the  historical  books,  the 
two  most  prominent  ideas  are  those  of  redemption  and  revelation. " 


ITS  OWN  POINT  OF  VIEW  43 

good.  But,  apart  from  the  fact  that,  as  was  inevitable  on 
a  dualistic  basis,  good  and  evil  are  in  Zoroastrianism  largely 
physical  conceptions,  the  idea  receives  no  development,  is 
the  subject  of  no  history,  is  embodied  in  no  plan  which  is 
historically  carried  out.  The  uniqueness  of  the  Biblical 
religion  appears  only  the  more  strikingly  from  the 
contrast 

(3)  The  aim  of  God's  salvation,  of  His  entire  work  of 
OMe  in  humanity,  is,  that  man  shall  be  made  holy.1  This 
brings  us  to  a  third  marked  feature  in  the  religion  of  the 
Old  Testament,  as  of  the  Biblical  religion  generally — the 
indissoluble  relation  it  establishes  between  religion  and 
morality,  Religions  can  readily  be  found  which  have  no 
close  connection  with  morality ;  we  are  familiar  also  with  a 
morality  which  would  fain  make  itself  independent  of 
religion.  In  few  of  the  higher  religions,  however,  is  this 
relation  between  religion  and  morality  altogether  obscured. 
Throughout  history  there  is  generally  some  dim  perception 
that  the  gods  will  protect  and  reward  the  good,  and  will 
not  fail  to  punish  the  evil-doer.  The  peculiarity  of  the 
Biblical  religion  is  that  in  it  this  idea  of  the  connection  of 
religion  with  morality  is  the  all-dominating  one.  To  minds 
awakened  to  the  significance  of  the  moral  it  may  now 
appear  self-evident  that  a  religion  has  no  real  worth  which 
does  not  ally  itself  with  moral  ends, — which,  going  beyond 
even  external  guardianship  and  sanction  of  duties,  does  not 
take  morality  up  into  itself  as  the  expression  of  the  will 
and  character  of  God,  and  count  moral  obedience  an 
essential  part  of  His  service.  But  it  should  not  be  forgotten 
that  this  was  not  always  the  view  taken  of  religion,  and 
that  it  is  largely  through  the  influence  of  the  religion  of 
the  Bible,  purifying  and  ennobling  our  conceptions,  that  we 
have  now  come  to  perceive  even  this  truth  as  clearly  as  we 
do.  Already  in  its  first  pages — before  the  word  "  holy  "  is 
yet  met  with — the  Old  Testament  sets  itself  against  sin  in 
heart  and  deed.*  God  accepts  and  vindicates  righteous  men 
like  Abel,  Enoch,  and  Noah ;  overwhelms  with  His  judgments 
a  world  corrupted  by  sin;  destroys  wicked  cities  like 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  He  requires  that  Abraham  shall 
walk  before  Him  and  be  perfect;  Abraham's  assurance 

1  Cf.  Dillmann,  AlUut.  Theol.  p.  42. 
•SMlwlow,  pp.  114-15. 


44  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

about  Him  is  that  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  will  do  right.1 
As  revelation  advances,  the  indissolubleness  of  this  con- 
nection of  religion  and  morality  becomes  only  clearer.  The 
ethical  was  never  so  exalted;  the  ideals  of  conduct  were 
never  raised  so  high;  religion  and  duty  were  never  so 
completely  fused  together,  as  in  the  pure  and  sublime 
precepts  of  psalms  and  prophets.  "  He  hath  showed  thee, 
O  man,  what  is  good,  and  what  doth  Jehovah  require  of 
thee,  but  to  do  justly,  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly 
with  thy  God."2  A  religion  of  this  kind,  so  high  in  its 
views  of  God,  so  true  to  the  needs  of  man,  so  adequate  in  its 
provisions  for  man's  deliverance,  so  holy  in  its  spirit,  so 
exalted  in  its  moral  demands,  never  emanated,  we  may  be 
sure,  from  man's  own  devisings.  It  is  too  high  for  him ;  he 
could  not  attain  to  it.  Even  if  he  could  have  conceived  the 
idea  of  it,  he  could  not  have  translated  it  into  fact  and 
history  as  is  done  in  the  Scriptures. 

V.  CLAIM  TO  AN  ORIGIN  IN  EEVELATION 

This,  accordingly,  is  the  next  thing  which  impresses  us 
in  our  study  of  the  Old  Testament, — the  consciousness 
which  everywhere  pervades  it  that  this  religion,  the 
historical  stages  of  which  it  unfolds  to  us,  is  not  the 
creation  of  man's  own  spirit,  but  is  a  product  of  special 
-divine  revelation.  The  tendency  of  the  modern  mind,  it 
was  before  seen,  is  to  substitute  psychology  for  revelation. 
Instead  of  God's  word  to  Isaiah,  or  John,  or  Paul,  it  gives 
us  the  thoughts  of  Isaiah,  or  John,  or  Paul  about  God. 
Even  where  the  word  "  revelation "  is  used,  it  is  with  this 
purely  psychological  connotation.8  This,  however,  is  not 
the  Bible's  own  point  of  view.  The  Bible  is  not  primarily 
a  record  of  man's  thoughts  about  God,  but  a  record  of  what 
God  has  done  and  revealed  of  Himself  to  man.  Its  basis  is 
not, "  Thus  and  thus  thinks  man,"  but, "  Thus  and  thus  saith 
Jehovah,"  or,  "Thus  and  thus  Jehovah  has  done."  It 
records,  indeed,  man's  thoughts  about  God — his  prayers, 
struggles,  hopes,  meditations,  aspirations — but  these  spring 
always  out  of  what  God  has  made  known  of  Himself  in 
word  and  deed.  The  Bible  is  not  a  mere  revelation  of 

1  Gen.  zvii.  1,  xviii.  25,  etc. 

1  Mic.  yi.  8.  'See  above,  p.  21. 


ITS  OWN  POINT  OF  VIEW  45 

abstract,  or  what  Leasing  would  call  "  eternal,"  truths  about 
God,  but  above  all  a  discovery  of  the  way  in  which  God  has 
revealed  His  loving  will  to  man  in  word  and  deed  in  history. 
"  He  made  known  His  ways  unto  Moses,  His  doings  unto 
the  children  of  Israel" l  It  is  this,  we  would  here  observe, 
which  makes  the  historical  element  in  Scripture  so  indis- 
pensable and  precious,  and  warns  us  against  the  tendency 
bo  speak  slightingly  of  it,  as  if  myth  and  legend  would 
serve  the  purposes  of  revelation  equally  with  fact.1 
Everyone  feels  that  this  is  not  the  case  with  the  history, 
of  Christ  in  the  Gospels ;  but  in  the  Old  Testament  also  it 
is  in  great  measure  true  that  it  was  not  from  inward  in- 
tuition, or  reflections  of  their  own,  that  prophets  and 
psalmists,  or  the  ordinary  pious  Israelite,  derived  their 
knowledge  of  God,  and  assured  confidence  in  Him,  but  from 
what  God  had  revealed  of  Himself  in  the  past  history  of 
the  people.8  The  acts  were  the  source,  the  medium,  the 
authorisation  of  the  knowledge;  and,  if  these  were  taken 
away,  the  knowledge  would  disappear  with  them.  Accord- 
ingly, we  find  that,  in  the  highest  point  which  the  saint  of 
the  Old  Testament  can  reach  in  the  apprehension  of  this 
revelation,  he  still  feels  that  it  transcends  him,  is  infinitely 
above  him,  in  a  way  which  anything  proceeding  from  his 
own  thoughts  could  not  be.  Thus :  "  Many,  0  Jehovah  my 
God,  are  Thy  wonderful  works  which  Thou  hast  done,  and 
Thy  thoughts  which  are  to  us- ward:  they  cannot  be  set 
in  order  unto  Thee:  if  I  would  declare  and  speak  of 
them,  they  are  more  than  can  be  numbered."  *  Or  again : 
"  My  thoughts  are  not  your  thoughts,  neither  are  your  ways 
My  ways,  saith  Jehovah.  For  as  the  heavens  are  higher 
than  the  earth,  so  are  My  ways  higher  than  your  ways,  and 
My  thoughts  than  your  thoughts."  6 

Here,  then,  we  strike  on  another  great  peculiarity  of 
Israel's  consciousness  —  the  sense,  viz.,  that  it  was   the * 

1  Ps.  ciiL  7. 

'Thus,  e.g.,  Schultz,  O.T.  Thtol.  i.  pp.  17-23:  "In  fact,  legend  must 
be  regarded  aa  fitted  in  a  higher  degree  than  history  to  be  the  medium  of 
the  Holy  Spirit"  Would  Schultz  apply  this  to  the  history  of  Jesus  in  the 
Gospels  t  See  Note  B  on  Mythology  and  History  in  the  Old  Testament. 

•  Cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  Prophets,  pp.  10-14  ;  Ladil,  DocL  of  Sae.  Scripture, 
L  pp.  737  IT. ;  Bruce,  Chief  End  of  Revelation,  pp.  57  IF.  This  connecting 
of  revelation  with  actt  of  God  is  the  strong  point  made  in  Rothe's  Zur 
Doamatik. 

4  Ps.  xl.  5.  •  Isa.  IT.  8,  9. 


46  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

possessor  and  guardian  of  a  quite  peculiar  revelation  from 
God,  and  in  this  respect  occupied  a  perfectly  unique 
position  among  the  nations  of  the  earth.  The  answer  to 
this,  we  know,  is  thought  to  be  simple.  It  is  often  said  by 
those  who  believe  all  religions  to  be  equally  a  natural 
growth :  "  Every  nation  in  the  beginning  of  its  history  has 
its  wonderful  stories  to  tell  of  miracles,  revelations,  appari- 
tions of  the  gods :  all  religions  in  this  respect  are  much  the 
same :  the  Jewish  and  Christian  religions  are  just  like  the 
rest."  But  we  would  take  the  liberty  to  reply :  That  is  not 
quite  the  case.  There  is  no  other  nation  on  earth  which 
has  such  a  story  to  tell  of  the  beginnings  of  its  religion — 
even  as  a  story,  we  mean — as  the  Israelite  had  to  tell  of 
his,  and  the  Israelite  was  perfectly  consckms  of  this 
absolutely  unique  character  of  his  history.  Mythologies, 
fables,  legends  of  appearances  of  the  gods  there  are  in 
abundance ;  but  no  such  orderly,  coherent  history,  charged 
with  great  ideas,  as  that  which  meets  us  in  the  Bible. 
This  consciousness  of  the  absolutely  exceptional  character 
of  the  history  is  brought  out  very  strikingly  in  one  passage 
in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy.  Moses  there  speaks:  "For 
ask  now  of  the  days  that  are  past,  which  were  before  thee, 
since  the  day  that  God  created  man  upon  the  earth,  and 
from  the  one  end  of  the  heaven  unto  the  other,  whether 
there  hath  been  any  such  thing  as  this  great  thing  is,  or 
hath  been  heard  like  it  ?  Did  ever  people  hear  the  voice 
of  God  speaking  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire,  as  thou  hast 
heard,  and  live  ?  Or  hath  God  assayed  to  go  and  take  Him 
a  nation  from  the  midst  of  another  nation,  by  temptations, 
by  signs,  and  by  wonders,  and  by  war,  and  by  a  mighty 
hand,  and  by  a  stretched-out  arm,  and  by  great  terrors, 
according  to  all  that  Jehovah  your  God  did  for  you  in 
Egypt  before  your  eyes?  Unto  thee  it  was  shewed,  that 
thou  mightest  know  that  Jehovah  He  is  God :  there  is  none 
else  beside  Him."1  If  this  be  true  of  the  origin  of  the 
religion  of  Israel,  it  is  still  more  true  of  the  origin  of 
Christianity;  for,  assuredly,  no  other  religion  is  founded 
on  such  a  history  as  that  of  Jesus  Christ, — on  the  character, 
claims,  work,  life,  death,  and  resurrection,  of  such  a  Person 
as  Jesus  Christ  is, — no,  not  in  all  the  world ! 

The  truth  is,  it  is  vain  to  attempt  to  find  a  parallel  for 
1  Dent.  iv.  32-35  ;  cf.  vein.  6-8. 


ITS  OWN  POINT  OF  VIEW  47 

this  wholly  unique  phenomenon  of  the  religion  of  Israel 
Take  again  the  two  points  already  mentioned :  the  mono- 
theism of  this  religion,  and  the  indissoluble  connection  it 
establishes  between  religion  and  morality.  It  is  not 
uncommon  to  hear  this  monotheistic  faith  spoken  of  as  if 
it  were  a  stage  which,  given  only  favourable  conditions, 
every  nation  was  bound  to  reach  in  the  course  of  its 
development.1  Man  begins,  it  is  supposed,  by  worshipping 
spirits,  or  ghosts  of  ancestors,  or  something  of  the  kind; 
then  mounts  to  the  conception  of  a  tribal  deity;  then 
extends  the  power  of  this  deity,  or  blends  the  deity  with 
others,  till  he  is  viewed  as  the  sole  ruler  of  the  world.  But, 
unfortunately,  the  facts  do  not  bear  out  this  ingenious 
theory.  It  has  frequently  been  pointed  out  that  there  are, 
even  yet,  only  three  monotheistic  religions  in  the  world — 
the  Jewish,  the  Christian,  and  the  Mohammedan,  which, 
in  this  respect,  is  derived  from  the  other  two.  That  is  to 
say,  all  the  monotheistic  religion  there  is  in  the  world  is 
derived  from  the  religion  of  the  Bible.  It  is  not  meant 
that,  beneath  and  behind  the  polytheism  of  older  religions, 
there  are  not  many  indications  of  a  purer  monotheistic 
consciousness,  or  that  there  have  not  often  been,  in  indi- 
viduals and  schools,  very  remarkable  approximations  to  the 
truth  about  the  unity,  power,  wisdom,  goodness,  and 
providence  of  God.*  In  that  sense  God  has  never  left 
Himself  without  witness.  But  it  is  a  well-understood  truth 
that  philosophical  speculations  have  never  founded,  or  can 
found,  a  religion ;  and  it  is  simple  fact  of  history  that  no 
monotheistic  religions — religions,  that  is,  based  on  the  unity 
and  spirituality  of  God  as  fundamental  articles — have  ever 
arisen,  except  those  above  mentioned. 

Or  take  the  other  point — the  indissoluble  blending  of 
morality  and  religion.  Where,  again,  do  we  find  anything 
corresponding  to  this  outside  the  Biblical  revelation  ?  One 
of  the  early  fathers  of  the  Church  gives  us  a  description 
of  an  Egyptian  temple — lofty,  spacious,  gorgeous,  inspiring 
the  worshipper  by  its  grandeur  with  solemn  awe.  You 

1  Kuenen,  e.g.,  says  :  "To  what  we  might  call  the  universal,  or  at  least 
the  comiuou  rale,  that  religion  begins  with  fetishism,  then  develop*  into 
polytheism,  and  then,  but  not  before,  ascends  to  monotheism— that  is  to 
say,  if  this  highest  stage  be  reached  [a  Terr  important  proviso] — to  this  rule 
the  Israelites  are  no  exception." — R«l.  of  Israel,  \,  p.  225. 

*  See  p.  128  below. 


48  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

enter  the  precincts  of  the  temple,  but  when  the  priest,  with 
grave  air,  draws  aside  the  veil  that  hides  the  inner  shrine, 
you  behold  —  what?  A  cat,  a  crocodile,  a  serpent,  or 
other  animal,  rolling  on  a  purple  couch.1  Visit  now  the 
temple  of  Jehovah  at  Jerusalem.  Here,  too,  you  have  a 
gorgeous  building ;  here,  too,  a  priesthood,  altars,  a  shrine 
hidden  by  a  veil.  Within  the  veil  stands  the  ark  of  the 
covenant,  covered  by  the  mercy-seat,  sprinkled  with  blood 
of  atonement,  and  shadowed  by  the  golden  cherubim.  Let 
that  covering  be  lifted,  and  within  that  ark,  in  the  very 
core  and  centre  of  Israel's  religion,  in  its  most  sacred  place, 
you  find — what  ?  The  two  tables  of  the  moral  law.  There, 
in  a  word,  is  the  contrast  of  the  two  religions.  There  is 
the  declaration  of  the  truth  that,  before  and  above  all 
things  else,  Israel's  is  an  ethical  religion.  For  these  are 
"  the  tables  of  the  testimony  " 2 — the  basis  and  bond  of  the 
nation's  covenant  with  God — and  all  the  ritual  of  ceremonial 
institutions  is  but  a  scaffolding  to  protect  this  ethical  core 
from  injury,  or  a  means  of  restoring  the  worshipper  to 
favour  when  sin  has  disturbed  his  fellowship.  It  will  be 
remembered  that,  when  Jesus  came,  He  did  not  cut  Himself 
off  from  that  older  revelation,  but  declared  that  on  its  two 
commandments  of  love  to  God  and  love  to  man  hung  all 
the  law  and  the  prophets.3 

VI.  EEVELATION  IN  RELATION  TO  ITS  RECORD 

If  we  thus  let  the  Bible — Old  Testament  and  New — 
speak  for  itself,  and  compare  it  part  with  part :  still  more 
if  we  yield  ourselves  to  its  power,  and  strive  faithfully  to 
follow  its  directions,  the  conviction  will  irresistibly  grow 
upon  us  that  it  is  right  when  it  claims  to  be  based  on 
divine  revelation.  Out  of  that  revelation,  the  literature  of 
revelation,  which  we  call  the  Bible,  grows.  If  this  fact  be 
firmly  apprehended,  particular  questions  about  the  dates  or 
placing  of  books  will  not  much  trouble  us.  The  revelation  is 
there,  and  no  changes  in  the  dates  or  placing  of  books — none 
at  least  that  are  likely  to  be  permanently  brought  out — can 
do  anything  to  alter  its  fundamental  outlines.  If  a  revela- 
tion has  been  given,  it  is  surely  the  most  natural  thing  in 

1  Clem.  Alex.  Peed.  iii.  2. 

1  Ex.  xxxii.  15.    See  below,  Chap.  VI.  pp.  152  ff.         »  Matt.  xiii.  40 


ITS  OWN  POINT  OF  VIEW  49 

the  world  to  expect  that  a  record  should  be  made  or  kept 
of  the  stages  of  that  revelation,  either  by  its  original 
recipients,  or  by  those  who  stood  within  the  circle  of 
revelation,  and  possessed  in  an  eminent  degree  its  spirit1 
That  such  a  literature  exists,  adequate  in  every  respect  for 
making  known  to  us  the  revelation,  animated  and  pene- 
trated by  its  spirit,  though  in  varying  degrees, — for  the 
strictest  upholder  of  inspiration  will  hardly  place  the  Books 
of  Chronicles  on  tho  same  level  with  the  Gospel  of  St.  John, 
— fitted  as  a  whole  infallibly  to  accomplish  its  great  end  of 
making  men  wise  unto  salvation  through  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ,  and  of  completely  furnishing  the  man  of  God  unto 
every  good  work,2 — that  such  a  literature  exists,  the  only 
ultimate  proof  that  can  be  given  is  the  existence  of  the 
book  itself ;  and  such  a  book,  as  we  have  seen  even  from 
this  brief  inspection  of  its  character,  we  have  in  the  Bible. 
The  simple  fact  that  in  this  sacred  volume,  so  marvellous 
in  its  own  structure,  so  harmonious  and  complete  in  the 
view  it  gives  of  the  dealings  of  God  with  man,  so  rich  and 
exhaustless  in  its  spiritual  content,  so  filled  with  the  mani- 
fest presence  and  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  we  have  every- 
thing we  need  to  acquaint  us  fully  with  the  mind  and  will  of 
God  for  our  salvation,  and  to  supply  us  for  all  the  ends  of 
our  spiritual  life,  is  sufficient  evidence  that  the  revelation 
which  God  has  given  is,  in  every  essential  particular,  purely 
and  faithfully  embodied  in  it.  No  more  than  the  revela- 
tion from  which  it  springs,  is  the  Bible  a  product  of  mere 
human  wisdom,  but  has  God  for  its  inspiring  source ! 

This,  as  we  understand  it,  is  the  Bible's  own  test  of  its 
inspiration,  alike  in  Old  Testament  and  in  New,9  and  by 
it,  without  nearer  definition,  we  are  content,  for  our  present 
purpose,  to  abide.  The  subject  is  taken  hold  of  by  its 
wrong  end,  when  the  test  of  inspiration  is  sought  primarily 

1  "  What  would  to  the  conceivable  nature  of  revealed  religion,  without  a 
record  of  facts  T  The  briefest  consideration  convinces  us,  that  either  the 
whole  nature  of  revelation  must  to  essentially  changed,  or  else  a  record  of 
its  historic  process  must  somehow  to  preserved.  To  to  sure,  the  fact  of 
ultimate  and  supreme  importance  is  the  fact  of  revelation  itself.  But  the 
verr  nature  of  revelation,  if  it  is  to  take  the  form  of  an  historic  process,  is 
such  as  to  demand  a  record  of  that  process.  The  foundations  of  Christianity 
are  historically  laid,"  etc.— Ladd,  Doet.  of  Sac.  Script,  i.  p.  787. 

*  2  Tim.  iil  16-17. 

•  Cf.,  «.g.,  Dent  xxx.  10-16  ;  Josh.  L  7,  8;  Pas.  L,  xix.  7-14,  cxix. ; 
John  xiv.  26 ;  xx.  31 ;  Burn.  xv.  4,  etc. 


50  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

in  minute  inerrancy  in  external  details,  as  those  of 
geography,  or  chronology,  or  of  physical  science.  Inspira- 
tion does  not  create  the  materials  of  its  record:  it  works 
upon  them.1  The  crucial  question  is — Do  the  qualities 
which  inspiration  is  expressly  declared  to  confer  on 
Scripture — e.g.,  in  such  a  classical  passage  as  2  Tim.  iii 
15-17 — really  belong  to  it  ?  We  think  it  will  be  difficult 
for  any  candid  mind  to  deny  that  they  do.  Who,  coming 
to  this  sacred  book,  with  a  sincere  desire  to  know  God's 
will  for  the  direction  of  his  life,  will  say  that  he  cannot 
find  it?  Who,  desiring  to  be  instructed  in  the  way  of 
salvation  "through  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus,"  will 
consult  its  pages,  and  say  it  is  not  made  plain  to  him  ? 
Who,  coming  to  it  for  equipment  of  his  spiritual  life,  will 
say  that  there  are  still  needs  of  that  life  which  are  left 
unprovided  for?  Who,  seeking  direction  in  the  way  of 
the  life  everlasting,  can  doubt  that,  if  he  faithfully  obeys 
its  teaching,  he  will  reach  that  goal  ?  The  Scripture  fulfils 
the  ends  for  which  it  was  given ;  no  higher  proof  of  its 
inspiration  can  be  demanded.2 

VIL  EELATION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  TO  CHRIST 

There  is  but  one  further  remark  we  would  make  in 
closing  this  chapter.  It  relates  to  the  place  which  Christ 
holds  in  Scripture,  and  ought  to  have  in  our  study  of  every 
part  of  it.  If  what  has  been  said  of  divine  revelation  is 
true,  it  follows  that  everything  else  in  Scripture  has  its 
centre  and  point  of  connection  in  Him.  If  the  Bible  is  a 
structure,  Christ  is  the  corner  stone  in  that  structure.  All 
else  in  it  is  designed  to  lead  up  to  Him,  while  in  knowing 
Him,  in  learning  to  see  in  Him  the  image  and  revelation 
of  the  Father,  in  being  drawn  into  sympathy  with  His 

1  See  Note  C  on  Inspiration  and  the  Materials  of  the  Record. 

»Cf.  Westcott,  Bible  in  the  Church,  p.  14:  "The  Bible  contains  in 
itself  the  fullest  witness  to  its  divine  authority.  If  it  appears  that  a 
large  collection  of  fragmentary  records,  written,  with  few  exceptions, 
without  any  designed  connection,  at  most  distant  times  and  under  the 
most  varied  circumstances,  yet  combine  to  form  a  definite  whole,  broadly 
separated  from  other  books  ...  if  in  proportion  as  they  are  felt  to  be 
separate  they  are  felt  also  to  be  instinct  with  a  common  spirit ;  then  it 
will  he  readily  acknowledged  that,  however  they  were  united  afterwards 
into  the  sacred  volume,  they  are  yet  legibly  stamped  with  the  divine  seal 
as  '  in -pined  of  God'  in  a  sense  in  which  no  other  writings  are." 


ITS  OWN  POINT  OF  VIEW  51 

Spirit,  in  tasting  the  grace  of  His  salvation, — in  coming 
to  know  that  in  Him  we  possess  "the  true  God  and 
eternal  life,"1 — we  gain  the  key  which  sets  all  else  in 
Scripture  in  its  true  light.  Without  this  key  we  are 
bound  to  miss  our  way  in  the  search  for  its  secret  No 
learning,  no  cleverness,  will  enable  us  to  find  it  out  In 
vain  do  we  go  to  the  Old  Testament,  or  to  any  part  of 
Scripture,  for  the  satisfaction  of  a  mere  intellectual  or 
literary  curiosity.  It  was  not  for  this  it  was  given,  but 
to  conduct  us  into  the  presence  of  Him  who,  of  God,  is 
made  unto  us  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification, 
and  redemption.2  What  the  closing  verse  of  the  20th 
chapter  of  John's  Gospel  says  of  that  book :  "  But  these  are 
written,  that  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life  through 
His  name," 8  may  with  equal  truth  be  applied  to  the  Bible 
as  a  whole.  Christ  is  the  central  sun  in  that  firmament : 
only  when  we  are  brought  within  the  range  of  His  beams 
have  we  the  light  of  life. 

1 1  John  v.  20.  f  1  Cor.  i.  30.  •  John  xx.  81. 


CHAPTER   III 

ttbe  ©U>  Testament  as  affectefc  b£  Criticism— 
L  Ubc  t)tston?:  argument  from  Critical 
premises 


"The  Bible  is  through  apd  through  of  historical  nature  and  spirit." — 
EWALD. 

"For  what  is  the  Old  Testament  from  the  Christian  point  of  view — 
and  from  no  other  point  of  view  can  it  be  rightly  understood — but  the 
record  of  God's  gradual  revelation  of  Himself  to  Israel  in  His  purpose  of 
redeeming  love  with  a  view  to  the  establishment  of  His  universal  kingdom  t 
The  Incarnation  was  to  be  the  culminating  point  of  that  revelation  and 
that  purpose." — A.  F.  KIKKPATRICK. 

"On  the  other  hand,  writers  of  the  liberal  school  in  Germany  take  so 
completely  for  granted, — either  on  mere  critical  grounds,  or  because  they 
assume  from  the  first  the  utter  impossibility  of  miracles  or  supernatural 
revelations, — the  unhistorical  character  and  non-Mosaic  origin  of  the  greater 
portion,  at  least,  if  not  the  whole,  of  the  Pentateuch,  that  they  do  not 
generally  take  the  trouble  to  test  the  credibility  of  the  story,  by  entering 
into  such  matter-of-fact  inquiries  as  are  here  made  the  basis  of  the  whole 
argument." — COLENSO. 

"  We  nevertheless  firmly  maintain  that  the  preceding  history  of  Israel, 
from  the  Elohistic  account  of  the  creation  to  the  history  of  Joseph,  was 
written  in  ancient  pre-exilian  times." — DELITZSCH. 

"  Kuenen's  name  for  the  book  [JE]  with  which  we  are  dealing,  viz., 
the  '  Prophetic '  narrative,  is  scarcely  happy.  Some  of  ita  most  remarkable 
elements  are,  as  Kuenen  himself  points  out,  pre-prophetic.  .  .  .  The  two 
books  evidently  proceeded  in  parallel  lines  of  narrative,  and  it  is  often  hard 
— nay,  impossible — to  say  whether  a  particular  section  of  the  Hexateuch 
belongs  to  the  Jahvist  or  the  Elohist." — ADDIS. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM 
— L  THE  HISTORY :  ARGUMENT  FROM  CRITICAL 
PREMISES 

LONG  ere  this  point  is  reached,  loud  protests  will  have 
been  raised  against  the  flagrantly  "  uncritical  "  character  of 
our  procedure,  as  shown  in  our  ignoring  of  those  well- 
established  results  of  scholarship  which  have  had  the 
effect  of  shivering  the  supposed  unity  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  of  destroying  the  credibility  of  its  narratives,  especially 
of  those  which  have  had  most  weight  attached  to  them  in 
the  history  of  revelation.  We  shall  now  do  what  we  can 
to  remove  this  reproach  by  proceeding  to  inquire  how  far 
the  view  of  the  Old  Testament  to  which  we  have  been  led 
by  the  consideration  of  its  own  structure  is  overthrown  or 
modified  by  the  application  of  a  really  scientific  criticism. 
Further,  that  no  undue  advantage  may  be  taken,  or  cause 
given  for  complaint  that  the  strength  of  the  critical  position 
is  overlooked,  we  propose,  in  the  first  instance,  as  indicated 
in  the  preliminary  sketch,  to  discuss  the  questions  of  the 
history,  and  of  the  religion  and  institutions,  of  Israel,  on 
the  basis  of  the  critical  theory  itself,  that  is,  with  pro- 
visional assumption  of  the  correctness  of  the  ordinary 
critical  analysis  and  dating  of  books.  The  canvassing  of 
the  critical  theory  on  its  merits  will  come  after.  But  it  is 
well  at  the  outset  to  see  what  follows,  even  if  the  generally- 
accepted  critical  analysis,  to  its  full  extent,  is  admitted. 
In  this  chapter  and  the  next  we  shall  deal  with  the  history. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  the  caution  formerly  given, 
that  all  critics  are  not  offhand  to  be  classed  as  of  the  same 
mind  on  this  and  other  subjects.  There  are,  as  we  shall 
constantly  have  occasion  to  see,  more  radical  and  more 
moderate  schools  of  criticism.  But  it  has  also  in  justice 


56    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

to  be  recognised  that  it  is  largely  the  methods  and  con- 
clusions of  the  most  radical  school  —the  Graf-Kuenen-Well- 
hausen  school — which,  without  always  the  adoption  of  its 
anti-supernaturalistic  premises,  have  been  imported  into 
English-speaking  countries,  are  actively  propagated  under 
the  name  "Higher  Criticism,"  and  chiefly  rule  the 
current  representations  of  Old  Testament  history  and 
religion.1  The  late  Professor  W.  K.  Smith  already  claimed 
in  1885 :  "  Almost  every  younger  scholar  of  mark  is  on 
the  side  of  Vatke  and  Reuss,  Lagarde  and  Graf,  Kuenen 
and  Wellhausen"2 — an  ominous  utterance  for  the  Old 
Testament.  This  is  our  justification,  if  one  is  needed,  for 
treating  the  radical  school  as  representative. 

L  CRITICAL  ASSAULT  ON  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

We  begin  by  looking  at  the  general  attitude  of  this 
advanced  school  to  the  history  of  the  Old  Testament. 

1.  It  does  not  put  the  matter  too  strongly,  then,  to  say 
that,  to  the  more  radical  school  of  critics,  the  Old  Testament 
is  in  the  main  unhistorical.  Not  necessarily,  of  course,  that 
there  is  not  in  parts — some  would  acknowledge  in  con- 
siderable parts — a  historical  substratum.  Everyone  may 
not  go  so  far,  at  one  end  of  the  history,  as  Stade,  who 
doubts  whether  Israel  as  a  people  was  ever  in  Egypt  at 
all ; 3  or,  at  the  other  end,  as  Kosters,  who  denies  the  return 
from  the  exile  at  Babylon  under  ZerubbabeL*  But  the 
books  as  they  stand  are,  for  all  that,  held  not  to  be,  at 
least  till  the  days  of  the  kings,  and  even  then  only  very 
partially,  genuine  history. 

1  Cf.  above,  pp.  12,  17.  In  proof  we  may  refer  generally  to  the  Old 
Testament  articles  in  Hastings'  Diet,  of  Bible  (with  exceptions)  or  Cheyne's 
Encyc.  Biblica  ;  to  Addis  and  Carpenter  on  the  Hezateuch  ;  to  the  volumes 
on  Joshua,  etc.,  in  "Polychrome  Bible";  to  those  on  Numbers,  Judges, 
Samuel,  etc.,  in  the  "International  Crit.  Commentary";  to  Professor 
H.  P.  Smith's  0.  T.  History,  in  the  "  International  Theological  Library," 
and  many  other  works  of  the  same  class. 

J  Preface  to  Wellhausen's  Hist,  of  Israel  (E.T.),  p.  vL 

»  Geschichte,  i.  pp.  129-30. 

4  In  his  Het  herstel  van  Israel  (1894),  H.  P.  Smith  adopts  his  theory, 
O.T.  Hist.  chap.  xvi.  According  to  the  latter  writer,  "the  decree  of  Cyrus 
is  impossible,"  and  "the  theory  of  a  return,  of  an  interruption  of  the  work, 
of  any  interference  by  Darius,  is  contradicted  by  Haggai  and  Zechariah  " 
(p.  853).  Of  Ezra,  if  he  existed,  "we  know  nothing  "  (p.  396).  See  below, 
Chap.  IX.  p.  295. 


I.  THE  HISTORY  57 

To  illustrate :  the  Book  of  Genesis,  we  are  told,  is  "  a 
book  of  sacred  legend,  with  a  mythical  introduction." 1  It 
yields  us  "no  historical  knowledge  of  the  patriarchs,  but 
only  of  the  time  when  the  stories  about  them  arose  in 
the  Israelite  people:  this  later  age  is  here  unconsciously 
projected,  in  its  inner  and  outer  features,  into  hoar  antiquity, 
and  is  reflected  there  like  a  glorified  mirage,"*  The  "  de- 
scriptions of  the  Exodus  from  Egypt,  the  wandering  in  the 
desert,  and  the  conquest  and  partition  of  Canaan  ...  to  put 
it  in  a  word,  are  utterly  unhistoruxd." 5  "Briefly  described, 
then,  the  Book  of  Joshua  is  an  historical  romance.  .  .  .  We 
must  lose  much  of  the  religious  value  the  Book  of  Joshua 
possesses  while  we  treat  it  as  history,  and,  indeed,  until  we 
treat  it  as  what  it  is — romance."  *  "  The  narrative  gives 
us  exactly  what  did  not  occur  at  the  conquest."6  The 
Jehovistic  writer  in  the  Hexateuch  (J)  "  feels  himself  in 
an  ideal  fairy  land  in  which  no  wonders  are  surprising." ' 
The  unfortunate  Priestly  writer  (P),  on  the  other  hand,  has 
neither  historical  nor  literary  merit,  and  is  refused  credence 
on  all  hands.  Noldeke,  we  are  told,  made  an  end  of  him 
"  once  for  all " ;  but  "  Colenso  is  properly  entitled  to  the 
credit  of  having  first  torn  the  web  asunder." 7  His  names, 
numbers,  and  precise  details,  which  imposed  even  on  such 
good  critics  as  Bleek,  Hupfeld,  and  Knobel,  "  are  not  drawn 
from  contemporary  records,  but  are  the  fruit  solely  of  late 
Jewish  fancy,  a  fancy  which,  it  is  well  known,  does  not 
design  nor  sketch,  but  counts  and  constructs,  and  produces 
nothing  more  than  barren  plans."8  In  brief:  "We  have  no 
really  historical  knowledge  of  a  patriarchal  period  preceding 
Israel's  conquest  of  Canaan.  The  individuals,  Abraham, 

1  Scholtz,  0.  T.  TJuol.  i.  p.  81. 

1  Wellhansen,  llitl.  of  Israel,  pp.  818-19. 

'  Kuenen,  Hexatfuch,  p.  42  (italics  his).  It  is  of  this  writer's  work  that 
Professor  W.  R.  Smith  permitted  bimsell  to  say :  "  H is  (Kuenen'a)  discussions 
of  the  more  complicated  questions  of  Pentateuch  analysis  arc  perhaps  the 
finest  things  that  modern  criticism  can  show."— Preface  to  Wellhausen, 
p.  viii. 

4  Professor  G.  B.  Gray,  in  a  review  of  Bennett's  Joshua  ("  Polychrome 
Bible"),  1899. 

•  H.  P.  Smith,  O.T.  Hint.  p.  382. 

•  F.  H.  Woods,  art.  "  Hexateuch  "  in  Diet,  tf  Bible,  ii.  p.  872.    Of.  with 
Dr.  Driver's  statement  in  his  flenetii,  p.  zlv,  quoted  below,  p.  105:  "The 
patriarchal  narratives  are  marked  by  great  sobriety  of  statement  and  repre- 
sentation," etc. 

'  Wellhaosen,  Hut.  tf  Israel,  p.  847.  •  Ibid.  p.  848. 


58    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

Isaac,  and  Jacob,  are  eponyms — personifications  of  clans, 
tribes,  or  ethnological  groups — and  they  are  nothing 
more."1 

-As  respects  the  later  books,  a  basis  of  political  history 
is  necessarily  recognised,  but  the  books  as  we  have  them 
are  declared  to  be  throughout  unreliable  and  misleading. 
"  In  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,"  we  are  told,  "  we  are  not 
presented  with  tradition  purely  in  its  original  condition: 
already  it  is  overgrown  with  later  accretions.  ...  To  vary 
the  metaphor,  the  whole  area  of  tradition  has  finally  been 
uniformly  covered  with  an  alluvial  deposit  by  which  the  con- 
figuration of  the  surface  has  been  determined."  2  Here  are  a 
few  examples.  On  1  Sam.  vii. :  "  The  mere  recapitulation  of 
the  contents  of  this  narrative  makes  us  feel  at  once  what 
a  pious  make-up  it  is,  and  how  full  of  inherent  impossi- 
bility." *  On  1  Sam.  xix.  18-24 :  "  We  can  scarcely  avoid 
the  suspicion  that  what  we  have  before  us  here  is  a  pious 
caricature ;  the  point  can  be  nothing  but  Samuel's  and  David's 
enjoyment  of  the  disgrace  of  the  naked  king."4  On  the 
Deuteronomic  revision  of  Kings:  "The  most  unblushing 
example  of  this  kind,  a  piece  which,  for  historical  worthless- 
ness,  may  compare  with  Judges  xix.-xxi.,  or  1  Sam.  vii.  seq.t 
or  even  stands  a  step  lower,  is  1  Kings  xxii."  6  On  editorial 
additions:  "These  valuable  notes  commence  even  with 
Solomon,  though  here  they  are  largely  mixed  with  anecdotic 
chaff."  8  Chronicles,  of  course,  so  far  as  it  does  not  embody 
extracts  from  older  works,  is  regarded  as  past  redemption. 
It  is  the  product  of  a  "law-crazed  "  fancy,  which  effects  "  a 
complete  transformation  of  the  original  tradition." 7  "  His 
work  must  not  be  called  history."  8  In  the  irreverence  of 
much  of  this,  one  is  forcibly  reminded  of  what  Dr.  Cheyne 
says  of  the  indebtedness  of  the  newer  criticism  to  eighteenth 
century  English  Deism.9  The  atmosphere  into  which  we 
are  brought  back  is  that  of  Morgan,  and  Bolingbroke,  and 
Hume,  and  the  impression  produced  is  correspondingly 
painful10 

1  H.  P.  Smith,  0.  T.  Hist.  p.  48. 
J  Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  228. 
»  Ibid.  p.  248.  *  Ibid.  p.  268. 

•  Ibid.  p.  285.  •  Ibid.  p.  286. 

7  Ibid.  pp.  195,  224.  8  H.  P.  Smith,  O.T.  Hist.  p.  5. 

'  Founders  of  Criticism,  pp.  1,  2. 
M  We  have  not  taken  notice  of  the  older  mythological  theories,  e.g. 


L  THE  HISTORY  59 

2.  It  will  not  be  disputed,  we  think,  that  these  extracts, 
taken  almost  at  random,  fairly  represent  the  views  and 
spirit  of  the  majority  of  the  books  and  articles  written  from 
the  newer  critical  standpoint, — certainly  those  of  the  most 
influential  representatives  of  the  school, — but,  as  already 
said,  there  are  critics  also  of  more  positive  tendency,  who 
contest  these  deductions  of  the  extremer  party,  and  take 
much  firmer  ground  on  the  historicity  of  the  patriarchal 
and    Mosaic  periods.     Such,  e.g.,  on    the    Continent,  are 
Konig,  Strack,  Kittel,  Oettli,  and  many  mora1     In  England, 
Dr.  Driver,  in  his  reverence  and  moderation  of  tone,  repre- 
sents the  mediating  position  of  many  believing  scholars, 
though  he  is  obviously  hampered  by  his  adherence  to  the 
Wellhausen  basis.    He  argues  for  a  historical "  core  "  in  the 
patriarchal  narratives,  thinks, even,  that  there  are  "reasonable 
grounds  for  concluding  that  the  narratives  are  in  substance 
historical";    but  comes  in   the  end  to  the  rather  lame 
conclusion,  that  "it  is  still,  all  things  considered,  difficult 
to  believe  that  some  foundation  of  actual  personal  history 
does  not  underlie  the  patriarchal  narratives."  2    The  main 
stream  of  the  critical  movement,  however,  is  not  to  be  held 
in  by  these  feeble  barriers,  and  continues  to  spread  itself 
over  the  entire  field  of  patriarchal  and  Mosaic  history  in  a 
broad  flood  of  scepticism. 

3.  What  are  the  grounds  on  which  this  sweeping  indict- 
ment against  the  Old  Testament  history,  and  specially  the 

those  of  Goldziher  in  Ins  Mythology  among  the  Hebrews,  who  takes  the  char- 
acters in  Genesis  and  Judges  to  be  sun-myths  ;  or  of  the  newer  extravagances  of 
Winckler,  whose  theories  are  favourably  regarded  by  Dr.  Cheyne  (Nineteenth 
Century,  Dec.  1902).  See  Note  A  on  Critical  Extravagances. 

1  In  his  Neueste  Primipien  Konig  coin  bats  the  views  of  Stade,  Guthe,  and 
others,  who  would  resolve  the  patriarchs  into  "  personifications  "  of  tribes  (see 
below,  pp.  88  ff.) ;  Kittel  defends  the  earlier  history  in  his  lecture  (translated) 
on  The  Babylonian  Excavations  and  Early  Bible  History,  etc.  Dillmann, 
in  his  posthumously  published  Altltst.  Theol.  (pp.  77-78,  82-33),  says :  "  We 
have  no  right  to  explain  these  Genesis  narratives  as  pure  fiction,  as  so  many 
now  do.  .  .  .  We  mistake  if  we  do  not  recognise  that  they  rest  in  essentials 
on  sound  historical  recollection.  .  .  .  Even  if  none  of  their  names  had  been 
handed  down  to  us,  we  would  require  to  postulate  such  revelation-figures  as 
we  have  in  Abraham  and  those  who  followed  him.  .  .  .  The  facts,  therefore, 
afford  rational  justification  for  the  picture  of  the  course  of  events  given  in 
Genesis,  at  least  in  its  main  features  (im  grossen  und  game*),"  Even 
Dillmann,  however,  concedes  a  good  deal  more  than  is  necessary. 

1  Genesis,  pp.  xlv,  xlvii,  Ivii.  Canon  Cheyne,  on  the  other  hand,  is  seriously 
disturbed  at  what  he  thinks  to  be  the  baiting  attitude  and  spirit  of  com- 
promise in  Dr.  Driver's  Introduction.  He  thinks  "  his  fences  are  weak,  aud 
may  at  any  moment  be  broken  down." — Founders  of  Criticism,  pp.  261  ff. 


60    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM- 

earlier  part  of  it,  is  based  ?  They  are,  as  we  shall  see, 
various :  the  late  date  of  composition,  the  manifest  legendary 
character  of  the  narratives,  assumed  variations  and  contra- 
dictions in  the  sources,  supposed  incompatibility  with  the 
rudimentary  state  of  religious  belief  in  early  times,  and  the 
like.  The  historicity  of  the  early  narratives,  it  is  held, 
cannot  be  maintained  in  view  of  the  fact,  which  criticism 
is  said  to  have  established,  that  the  Pentateuch  (or  with 
Joshua,  the  Hexateuch)  is  composed  of  documents  of  late 
date,  based  on  tradition  many  centuries  old — in  the  case  of 
the  Exodus  at  least  500  or  600  years,  in  the  case  of  the 
patriarchs  1000  to  1300  years — which,  therefore,  cannot 
be  supposed  to  preserve  accurately  the  memory  of  such 
distant  events.1  Kuenen,  who  here  may  be  taken  as  repre- 
sentative, gives  four  special  reasons  for  rejecting  the 
patriarchal  narratives.  They  are :  the  religious  ideas  which 
are  ascribed  to  the  patriarchs,  insoluble  chronological 
difficulties,  the  familiar  intercourse  of  the  deity  with  the 
patriarchs  ("  we  are  not  in  the  habit  of  accepting  as  history 
the  legends  which  afford  evidence  of  that  belief  "),  and,  "  the 
principal  cause  of  hesitation,"  the  persons  who  appear  as 
actors  in  the  narratives  "are  all  progenitors  of  tribes."2 
We  wonder  how  many  readers  of  the  Bible  feel  these 
"  obstacles  "  to  be  as  "  insurmountable  "  as  they  were  to  Dr. 
Kuenen.3  Much  of  all  this,  in  any  case,  as  we  shall  soon 
discover,  is  undiluted  assumption :  the  criticism  rests  on 
the  theory,  not  the  theory  on  the  criticism.  How  obviously, 
e.g.,  does  the  argument  from  "  religious  ideas "  *  rest  on  a 
certain  assumption  as  to  the  stage  of  religious  knowledge  of 
the  patriarchs — an  assumption  which  has  no  warrant  save 
in  the  critic's  own  theory  of  the  course  of  the  development.6 

1  Cf.  Kuenen,  Eel.  of  Israel,  i.  pp.  16,  17 ;  Driver,  Genesis,  p.  xliii ; 
H.  P.  Smith,  0.  T.  Hist.  i.  p.  7. 

a  Ed.  of  Israel,  i.  pp.  108-9.     Cf.  below,  pp.  88  ff. 

*  Cf.  Ladd,  Doct.  of  Sacred  Scripture,  i.  p.  362. 

4  Dr.  Driver  also  argues  for  an  "  idealisation  "  of  the  narratives,  on  the 
ground  that  "  in  the  days  of  the  patriarchs  religion  must  have  been  in 
a  relatively  rudimentary  stage"  (p.  Ix).  It  is  shown  later  (p.  115), 
however,  that  it  is  not  the  case,  as  Kuenen  argues,  that  the  patriarchs  are 
represented  as  "not  inferior  to  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.,  in 
pureness  of  religious  insight  and  inward  personal  piety." 

•  Horamel  says:    "When  we  find  that  a  whole  school  of  evangelical 
theologians  do  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  a  passage  was  composed  at  a  later 
date  or  interpolated,   simply  because  they  are  unwilling  to  recognise  the 
existence  of  any  high  moral  teaching  or  lofty  conception  of  the  Godhead  prior 


I.  THE  HISTORY  6l 

Postponing  meantime,  however,  the  discussion  of  these 
objections,  we  propose  to  proceed  in  more  constructive 
fashion,  in  setting  forth,  first,  the  grounds  of  our  belief  in  the 
substantial  trustworthiness  of  the  Old  Testament  history, 
even  under  the  limits  prescribed  by  the  critical  hypothesis. 

II.  IGNORING  OF  TELKOLOGICAL  ELEMENT  IN  THE  HISTORY 

The  critical  treatment  breaks  down  the  Biblical  narra- 
tives, disintegrates  them,  causes  them  to  crumble  to  pieces. 
But  there  are  features  in  the  narratives  which  resist  this 
treatment,  and  constitute  a  standing  protest  against  it. 
In  the  previous  chapter  we  laid  stress  on  the  singular 
character  of  "teleology"  in  the  Hebrew  history.  It  is 
history  dominated  by  the  idea  of  purpose,  and  that  a 
purpose  of  grace — of  redemption.  There  is  little,  if  any, 
recognition  of  this  in  the  writers  we  have  chiefly  in  view, 
though,  to  do  them  justice,  they  do  not  seek  to  get  rid  of 
the  impression  of  the  extraordinary  and  unique  in  Israel's 
history.  Still  the  necessity  of  explaining  the  development 
out  of  purely  natural  factors  causes  a  very  different  picture 
to  be  given  from  that  which  the  Old  Testament  itself 
sketches.1  One  looks  in  vain  in  Kuenen,  or  Wellhausen, 
or  Stade,  or  Gunkel,  or  in  such  an  Old  Testament  History 
as  that  of  Professor  H.  P.  Smith,  for  any  perception  of  the 
deeper  ideas  that  lie  in  the  Genesis  narratives,  or  of  their 
organic  relation  to  the  rest  of  Scripture.  To  a  developing 
purpose  of  salvation  they  seem  altogether  blind.  In  this 
their  criticism  is  already  self-condemned;  for  what  they 
fail  to  see  is  discerned  by  many  others,  as  keenly  critical 
as  themselves.  An  example  or  two  may  be  cited  from  such 
critical  writers,  if  only  to  show  that  this  idea  of  purpose  is 
no  hallucination  of  our  own  fancy,  which  we  are  seeking  per- 
versely to  import  into  the  narratives.  Dr.  Kautzsch,  of  Halle, 
in  a  lecture  on  The  Abiding  Value  of  the  Old  Testament, 
thus  writes :  "  The  abiding  value  of  the  Old  Testament  lies 
above  all  in  this,  that  it  guarantees  to  us  with  absolute 
certainty  the  fact  and  the  process  of  a  divine  plan  and  way 

to  the  time  of  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  or  seventh  centuries  B.C.,  then, 
in  view  of  the  facts  »<iduo-d  in  the  present  volume,  we  cannot  but  regard 
their  attitude  as  a  deplorably  mistaken  one,  and  hope  that  it  may 
become  a  thing  of  the  past." — Anf.  Ifeb.  Trad.  pp.  291-92. 
1  See  below,  pp.  86,  133  ff. 


62    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

i 

of  salvation,  which  found  its  conclusion  and  fulfilment  in 
the  new  covenant,  in  the  Person  and  work  of  Jesus 
Christ." l  Dillmann  likewise  sees  in  the  Old  Testament  the 
development  of  God's  redemptive  "plan."  "So  soon,"  he 
says,  "as  man  becomes  untrue  to  his  original  idea,  and, 
forsaking  the  attitude  of  obedience  to  God,  begins  his 
self-seeking  way,  there  comes  also  to  manifestation  the 
saving  activity  of  God  directed  to  this  apostacy  of  the 
creature.  ...  So  soon  as,  and  so  long  as,  sin  is  in  the 
world,  there  is  also  a  saving  activity  of  God."  *  Dr.  Driver 
says  of  the  narrator  J :  "  The  patriarchal  history  is,  in  his 
hands,  instinct  with  the  consciousness  of  a  great  future: 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  are  vouchsafed  in  succession 
glimpses  of  the  divine  plan."8  Kautzsch, again, just  quoted, 
says  of  his  (two)  J  writers :  "  Both  relate  the  primeval 
history  from  the  standpoint  of  a  history  of  redemption."  * 

To  all  this,  so  far  as  it  is  admitted,  the  reply  which 
comes  from  the  side  of  the  criticism  that  seeks  to  get  rid 
of  the  teleological  element  in  the  history  is,  that  the 
Biblical  representation  is  an  unreal  and  artificial  one :  not 
a  development  in  accordance  with  the  actual  history,  but 
an  imaginary  development,  the  result  of  a  reading  back  into 
the  primitive  legends  of  the  ideas  of  the  prophetic  age. 
The  appearance  of  development  is  superimposed  on  the 
historical  tradition  by  the  manner  in  which  its  materials 
are  manipulated.  Grant,  it  is  said,  the  critical  scheme — its 
analysis  and  partition  of  documents — and  the  illusion  of 
teleology  in  the  Old  Testament  story  disappears ;  so  far  at 
least  as  any  extraordinary  cause  is  required  to  account  for  it. 
In  the  words  of  Professor  Robertson :  "  What  they  maintain 
is,  that  the  scheme  of  the  Biblical  writers  is  an  afterthought, 
which,  by  a  process  of  manipulation  of  older  documents,  and 
by  a  systematic  representation  of  earlier  events  in  the  light 
of  much  later  times,  has  been  made  to  appear  as  if  it  were 
the  original  and  genuine  development"  6 

1  Die  Bleibendc  Bedeutung  da  A.  T.,  p.  28. 

1  fittest.  Theol.  p.  411.     See  whole  section. 

*  Genesis,  p.  xxi ;  cf.  pp.  Ixx  ff. 

4  Lit.  of  O.T.,  p.  38.  Sec  also  Ottley's  Aspects  of  the  O.T.,  pp.  56  ff. ; 
McFadyen's  Messages  of  the  Prophetic  and  Priestly  Historians,  pp.  27  fT. 
on  "  The  Progress  of  the  Divine  Purpose  in  the  Book  of  Genesis." 

8  Early  Religion,  p.  30.  Most  critics  agree  with  the  above  view,  so  f»r 
M  the  reading  back  of  prophetic  ideas  into  the  narratives  is  concerned. 


L  THE  HISTORY  63 

Now  we  do  not  wish  to  shirk  any  real  difficulty :  we  do 
not  really  feel  that  there  is  any  difficulty  here  that  needs  to 
be  shirked.  We  shall  not  even  at  this  stage,  as  before  said, 
raise  any  objection  to  the  currently-accepted  critical  view. 
We  are  prepared  to  assume  provisionally  that,  within 
reasonable  limits,  that  view  is  correct  But  we  ask — Is  it* 
the  case  that,  if  the  general  critical  hypothesis  be  granted, 
this  organic  unity  of  the  history,  with  the  remarkable 
teleological  character  which  we  have  seen  to  belong  to  it, 
disappears,  or  is  shown  to  be  an  illusion?  It  is  there  in 
the  Old  Testament  as  it  stands:1  can  it  be  got  rid  of  by 
any  skilful  dividing  up,  or  re-dating,  of  documents,  or  sup- 
posed later  touchiug-up,  interpolation,  or  re-editing?  We 
answer  that  question  very  confidently  in  the  negative. 

1.  For,  in  the  first  place,  this  teleological  character  we 
speak  of  is  not  a  thing  upon  the  surface  of  the  Biblical 
history, — not  a  thing  that  could  be  produced  by  any  number 
of  editorial  touchings  and  interpolations,  and  ingenious 
piecing  together  of  fragments, — but  is  ingrained  into  the 
very  substance  of  the  history,  is  part  of  its  texture,  is,  to 
use  the  happy  figure  of  Bushnell  about  the  image  of  Christ 
in  the  Gospels,  like  a  watermark  in  paper,  which  cannot  be 
destroyed  without  destroying  the  paper  itself.  It  is  not  the 
ingenuity  of  the  writer  in  arranging  his  materials,  but  the 
facts  of  the  history  and  development  of  the  people,  which 
work  out  this  plan  for  us.  It  makes  little  difference  how 
far  we  multiply  the  parts ;  the  singular  tiling  is  that,  when 
the  parts  are  put  together,  this  remarkable  appearance  of 
teleology  should  present  itself.  If  the  critic  persists: 
"  That  depends  on  your  way  of  arranging  the  materials  :  let 
me  arrange  them  my  way,  and  this  appearance  of  develop- 
ment will  be  destroyed  " ;  it  is  a  fair  reply  to  make  that,  if 
the  Biblical  way  of  arranging  the  materials  brings  out  a 
manifest  divine  design,  whereas  his  yields  only  confusion, 
this  of  itself  is  a  good  reason  for  thinking  that  the  Biblical 
way  is  probably  the  right  one.  Take  an  illustration.  The 
pieces  of  a  child's  puzzle  map  are  put  together  to  form, 
say,  the  map  of  Europe.  "  Oh,"  says  a  bystander,  "  that  is 
because  you  have  put  the  bits  together  in  a  particular  way. 

1  Wellhaosen  himself,  wo  shall  find,  allows;  "There  i*  no  primitive 
legend,  it  is  well  known,  so  well-knit  a*  the  Biblical  one,"  and  he  speaks  of 
"the  linked  unity  "  of  the  narrative. — Hitt.  of  Israel,  pp.  285,  818. 


6\    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

Let  me  arrange  them  in  another  way,  and  you  will  have  no 
map  at  all."  Possibly ;  but  the  fact  that  the  pieces,  when 
so  put  together,  form  the  map  is  the  best  proof  that  this 
was  the  contriver's  intention.  But  the  map  of  Europe  is  a 
small  matter  compared  with  this  purpose  of  God  wrought 
out  in  the  history  of  Israel  from  patriarchal  times,  and 
culminating  in  Christ. 

2.  A  second  reason  for  our  answer  is,  that,  if  the  plan 
inwrought  into  the  history  of  Israel  is  an  artificial  or  in- 
vented one,  we  have  to  find  the  mind  capable  of  inventing 
it.  If  anyone  can  bring  himself  to  believe  that  the  teleology 
we  meet  with  in  Scripture — the  divine  plan  of  grace  which 
forms  its  connecting  thread — is  of  so  simple  and  superficial 
a  character  that  it  would  readily  and  naturally  occur  to  any 
casual  collector  of  legends,  or  prophetically-minded  man,  in 
the  ninth  or  eighth  century  B.C.,  so  that  he  could  sit  down  and 
work  it  into  a  whole  history,  and  give  it  an  appearance  of 
naturalness  there,  we  can  only  say  of  such  an  one  that  he 
has  a  very  large  faith, — a  faith  nearly  as  great  as  that  of  the 
theorists  who  suppose  that  the  portrait  of  Jesus  in  the 
Gospels  was  created  by  a  Church  gathered  promiscuously 
out  from  Jews  and  Gentiles,  working  on  the  legendary 
reminiscences  of  a  good  and  wise  teacher,  when  the  real 
image  of  Jesus  had  been  forgotten !  The  difficulty  is  tenfold 
enhanced  if  we  accept  the  descriptions  furnished  us  by  the 
Wellhausen  school  of  the  state  of  prophetic  orders  in  the  age 
when  the  narratives  are  supposed  to  have  originated;  and 
further  assume,  with  the  newer  critics,  that  the  authors  of 
these  narratives  were  not,  as  formerly  believed,  individuals, 
but  were  "schools"  of  writers.1  This  is  how  Wellhausen 
speaks  of  the  prophets  before  Amos :  "  In  the  time  of  Ahab 
and  Jehu  the  Nebiim  were  a  widespread  body,  and  organised 
in  orders  of  their  own,  but  were  not  highly  respected ;  the 
average  of  them  were  miserable  fellows,  who  ate  out  of  the 
king's  hand,  and  were  treated  with  disdain  by  members  of 
the  leading  classes.  Amos  of  Tekoa,  who,  it  is  true,  belonged 
to  a  younger  generation,  felt  it  an  insult  to  be  counted  one 
of  them."2  Truly  a  likely  soil  for  the  growth  of  such 
conceptions  as  we  have  in  the  Book  of  Genesis ! 

1  On  this,  see  below,  pp.  206  ff. 

9  History  of  Israel,  p.  293;  cf.  p.   461.     See  also  Stade,   GeschieJite,  L 
pp.  476  ff. 


L  THE  HISTORY  65 


III.  CREDIBILITY  OP  HISTORY  ON  PREMISES  01 
CRITICAL  THEORY 

It  is  possible,  however,  we  believe,  on  the  premises  of 
the  critical  theory  itself,  to  show  that  this  "  teleology "  in 
the  history  of  Israel  is  not  an  invented  or  manipulated 
thing, — an  element  which  does  not  inhere  naturally  in 
the  facts,  but  a  conception  unhistorically  imported  into 
them, — and  to  furnish  strong  reasons  for  belief  in  the 
essential  trustworthiness  of  the  narratives.  This  we  shall 
now  attempt  to  do.  We  confine  attention  to  the  Pentateuch, 
or  Hexateuch,  in  which  most  will  admit  that  the  crucial 
part  of  the  problem  lies,  and  limit  ourselves,  at  this  stage, 
to  absolutely  essential  outlines  and  most  general  agreements. 
The  full  discussion  of  particular  points  involved  in  the 
theory  belongs  to  later  chapters. 

We  take,  then,  the  history  of  things  that  lies  before  us 
in  our  present  Pentateuch,  and  ask  what,  on  the  critical 
theory,  is  the  origin  of  this  book.  Setting  aside  Deuteronomy, 
commonly  assumed  to  be  a  composition  of  the  age  of  Josiah,1 
we  have,  on  the  currently-accepted  view,  three  main  strands 
of  narrative  in  the  Pentateuch,  of  which  one — the  Priestly 
Writing  (P) — is  understood,  in  its  present  form,  and  principal 
contents,  to  date  from  the  time  of  the  exile,  or  after.  It 
furnishes  the  "framework"  of  the  Book  of  Genesis,*  and 
contains,  in  the  middle  books,  the  Levitical  legislation,  to 
which  the  slender  thread  of  narrative  and  genealogy  in  the 
earlier  part  serves  as  introduction.8  It  is  not  supposed  to 
be  an  independent  historical  source,  but  in  its  narratives 
— so  Wellhausen  thinks 4 — presupposes  and  runs  parallel  to 
the  other  and  earlier  history  books,  J  and  E,  by  that  time 
united  into  one.  Nothing  is  lost,  therefore,  by  meanwhile 
leaving  this  P  portion  aside,  and  confining  ourselves  to  the 
two  older  writings.  The  theory  regarding  these,  in  brief, 
is,  that  they  were  originally  separate,  probably  independent 
productions,  extending,  with  inclusion  of  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
to  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  but  latterly  were  combined  with 

»Cf.  Chap.  VIII.       1Dillm»nn,G«iMflit,i.p.l8.    See  below,  pp.  21 5, 340  ff. 
'  See  Wellhanwn,  Hilary  of  Irrael,  p.  382.  i|uoted  below,  p.  342. 
*Ibid.  pp.  295,  318.     See  below,  p.  107.     The  P  narrative  op  to  Ex.  Ti. 
u  given  by  Wellhauaen,  pp.  327-32. 


66    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

each  other  into  something  like  the  form  in  which  we  now 
find  them  in  the  Pentateuch.  They  are  allowed  to  be  works 
extremely  similar  in  character,  and  largely  parallel  in 
contents;1  but  are  marked,  the  one  by  the  use  of  the 
divine  name  Jehovah,2  the  other  by  the  use  of  the  divine 
name  Elohim  (God).3  Hence  the  designations  J  and  E 
applied  to  them  respectively.  One  of  these  histories  (J)  is 
commonly  thought  to  have  originated  in  the  Southern 
Kingdom  of  Judah  ;  the  other  (E)  in  the  Northern  Kingdom 
of  Israel.4  How  far  they  were  the  fixing  of  mere  oral 
tradition,  or  how  far  they  rested  on  older  written  material,  is 
a  moot  question,  to  which  different  answers  are  given.  It  is 
further  a  point  in  dispute  which  of  these  assumed  narratives, 
J  or  E,  is  the  earlier ; 6  but  it  is  agreed  that,  in  the  words 
of  Dr.  Driver,  "  both  belong  to  the  golden  period  of  Hebrew 
literature."8  The  stylistic  and  other  differences  between 
them  are  slight ;  whereas  both  present  a  strong  contrast  to 
P,  which  is  distinguished  by  marked  peculiarities  of  style 
and  method.7 

-*  What  are  the  dates  of  these  books  ?  On  the  current 
view,  we  may  say  roughly,  not  later  in  their  independent 
form  than  the  ninth  and  eighth  centuries,  or  from  850  to 
750  B.C. ;  in  combination  a  century  or  two  later.  Dr. 
Driver  may  be  usefully  quoted  on  this  point.  "  On  the 
relative  date  of  E  and  J,"  he  says, "  the  opinions  of  critics 
differ.  Dillmann,  Kittel,  and  Eiehm  assign  the  priority  to 
E,  placing  him  900-850  B.C.,  and  J  c.  750  (Dillmann),  830- 
800  (Kittel),  or  c.  850  (Eiehm).  Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  and 
Stade,  on  the  other  hand,  assign  the  priority  to  J,  placing 
him  850-800  B.C.,  and  E  c.  750  B.C."  In  a  footnote  to  the 

^ee  below,  pp.  218ff. 

2  Variously  spelt  by  the  critics,  in  its  original  form,  Yahweh,  Yahveh, 
Jahweh,  Jahveh,  Yahve,  etc.  The  form  "Jehovah,"  arising  from  the  com- 
bination of  the  Hebrew  consonants  with  the  vowels  of  the  name  "  Adonai" 
(see  below,  p.  22S\  was  first  introduced  by  the  Franciscan  friar  Petrus 
Galatinus,  in  1518  A.D.  It  is,  therefore,  quite  modern. 

*  E  is  supposed  to  begin  in  Gen.  xx. :  according  to  some,  earlier  (chap.  xv. ). 
See  below,  p.  217. 

4  See  Chap.  VII.  pp.  208  ff.  B  See  Chap.  VII.  pp.  204 ff. 

8  Introd.  p.  124  :  Wellhausen  also  says  that  JE  "dates  from  the  golden 
age  of  Hebrew  literature." — History  of  Israel,  p.  9. 

7  J  is  described  as  vivid,  flowing,  anthropomorphic :  E  as  slightly  less 
so,  more  elevated,  etc.  P,  on  the  other  hand,  is  pragmatic,  formal, 
precise,  statistical,  genealogical,  juristic,  and  abounds  in  words  and  phrase* 
peculiar  to  himself.  See  below,  Chap.  X.  pp.  330 ff. 


I.  THE  HISTORY  67 

first  of  these  sentences,  he  adds :  "  So  most  previous  critics, 
as  Noldeke  (J  e.  900),  Schrader  (E  975-950;  J  825-800). 
Kayser  (c.  800),  Reuss  (J  850-800 ;  E '  perhaps  still  earlier  '>" 
And  in  a  second  note :  "  H.  Schultz,  O.T.  Theology,  i.  pp.  66  ft'. 
(J  to  the  reign  of  Solomon :  E  850-800)." l 

Accepting  provisionally  this  account  of  the  documents, 
we  proceed  to  inquire  what  inferences  may  be  deduced  from 
it  as  to  the  trustworthiness  of  the  history. 

1.  And,  first,  we  invite  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the 
important  fact,  that,  according  to  the  dates  given,  these 
writings  antecede  (he  mje  of  written  prophecy,  and  embody 
the  traditions  which  we  Israel itish  people  possessed  of  its 
history  prior  to  that  age.  We  do  not  ask  at  present 
whether  this  tradition  was  oral,  or  was  already  in  any 
degree  written.  It  was  there,  and  these  writings  are  the 
literary  depository  of  it,  in  somewhat  the  same  way  as  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  are  the  records  of  the  oral  teaching  about 
Christ  in  the  apostolic  age.  It  is  customary  to  speak  of 
J  and  E  as  the  reduction  to  writing  of  the  popular  legends 
of  the  Israelites  about  their  own  past.  Be  it  so:  the 
essential  point  is  that  they  are  at  least  not  histories  in- 
vented or  doctored  by  prophets  in  the  interests  of  a  later 
theory  of  the  religious  development.  The  more  naive  the 
consciousness  they  exhibit,  the  less  can  they  be  regarded  as 
the  products  of  reflective  manipulation.  In  any  case  they 
antecede  the  period  of  written  prophecy.8  They  cannot, 
therefore,  as  regards  their  general  character,  be  reasonably 
assumed  to  be  influenced,  modified,  or  transformed,  by  the 
ideas  of  that  period.  Their  authors — the  unknown  J  and  E 
— we  are  entitled  to  suppose,  put  faithfully  down  the 
tradition  as  they  found  it  in  circulation  among  their  people. 
They  might  select  according  to  predilection  from  the 
material  furnished  to  them,  but  they  did  not  consciously 
falsify  or  invent.  It  is  a  contradiction,  in  one  breath  to/ 
speak  of  these  writers  as  giving  literary  form  to  the  current 

1  Introd.  p.  123.     Further  dates  of  interest  are  given  below,  pp.  78-74. 

*  "The general  conclusions," says  Dr.  Driver,  "to  which  a  consideration 
of  all  the  facts  has  led  critics  ...  are  that  the  two  source*,  J  and  E, 
date  from  the  early  centuries  of  the  monarchy,  J  belonging  probably  to  the 
ninth  and  E  to  the  early  part  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.  (br/or*  Amos 
or  Hosea)."— Geneiit,  p.  xvi.  Sea  below,  p.  97.  It  will  be  seen  after, 
however,  that  this  theory  has  come  to  be  greatly  modified  in  the  interests  of 
later  dating  (see  pp.  206  U). 


68    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

traditions  of  their  nation,  and  in  another  to  represent  them 
as  elaborating  and  transforming  the  narratives  to  make 
them  the  vehicles  of  the  ideas  of  an  age  which,  on  the 
hypothesis,  had  not  yet  come. 

It  could  be  wished  that  critical  writers  showed  them- 
selves a  little  clearer  here  as  to  the  implications  of  their 
own  admissions  as  to  the  dates  of  these  J  and  E  narratives. 
Two  representations  cross  and  mingle  continually  in  their 
pages :  one,  that  the  writers  of  these  narratives  were  simple 
"  collectors  of  legends," l  as  Grimm  might  collect  the  folk- 
tales of  Germany;  the  other,  that  they  were  consummate 
literary  artists,  altering,  embellishing,  and  idealising  their 
material  at  pleasure:  one,  that  the  narrators  are  "pre- 
prophetic"  2  that  is,  antecede  the  age  of  the  great  writing 
prophets,  when,  we  are  told,  "ethical  monotheism"  was 
first  introduced ;  the  other,  that  they  were  prophetic 
narrators,  instinct  with  the  prophetic  spirit,  dominated  by 
prophetic  ideas,  and  adepts  in  recasting  their  narratives  to 
make  them  express  these  ideas.8  Manifestly  the  critics 
cannot  have  it  both  ways :  on  the  one  hand  holding  the  low 
views  of  Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  and  Stade,  on  the  state  of 
people  and  prophets  in  "  pre-prophetic  "  Israel,  and  regard- 
ing "  pure  Jahvism  "  as  the  "  creation  "  of  Amos  and  Hosea ; 4 
and  on  the  other,  picturing  the  ninth  and  eighth  centuries 
as  already  penetrated  with  lofty  prophetic  ideas,  bringing  to 
the  birth,  and  giving  exquisite  expression  to,  the  elevated 
conceptions  which  we  find  in  Genesis  and  Exodus — writing 
histories  "from  the  standpoint  of  redemption."  A  choice 
must  be  made,  and  either  the  books  be  brought  down  to  an 
age  when  prophetic  ideas  were  in  the  ascendant,  which 
involves  the  abandonment  of  the  given  dates,  or  the  con- 
tention be  surrendered  that  these  higher  ideas  first  entered 

1  "The  Jahvist  and  the  Elohist,"  says  Addis,  "were  historians,  or 
rather  collectors  of  national  myths  and  legends,  which  passed  for  history." 
— Hex.  p.  Ixvi. 

s  "  Both  belong,"  says  Bennett,  "to  the  pre-Deuteronomic,  pre-prophetic 
stage  of  the  religion  of  Israel." — Primer,  pp.  11,  15.  Cf.  Wellhausen, 
Hi*t.  of  Israel,  p.  32  ;  Addis,  p.  liii ;  Driver,  Genesis,  p.  xlviii,  etc. 

•Thus,  e.g.,  Kautzsch,  Lit.  of  O.T.,  pp.  35  ff.  ;  Mcfridyen,  Messages, 
etc.,  pp.  25,  26  ("Prophetic  Documents"):  Kuenen  likewise  uses  this 
designation  (Hex.  pp.  138tf.,  232 ff.),  but  regards  J  and  E  as  undergoing 
extensive  change*  in  a  later  "  Judaean  edition  "  (p.  248). 

4  Or,  with  Duhm,  Micah  and  Amos.  "Micah  and  Amos,"  he  says, 
"  first  raised  religion  out  of  the  sphere  of  nature  into  that  of  morality : 
thence  it  could  develop  higher."—  Theol.  d.  Proph.  p.  103. 


I.  THE  HISTORY  69 

with  Amos  and  Hosea.  The  natural  course  would  seem 
to  be  to  regard  the  writings  as,  indeed,  "  pre-prophetic  "  in 
the  sense  of  anteceding  written  prophecy,  but  at  the  same 
time  as  faithfully  recording  the  ancient  tradition,1  in  which 
prophetic  ideas  were  already  present 

2.  The    fact    thus  conceded    of    the    "pre-prophetic" 
character  of  the  narratives  yields  several  weighty  results. 

(1)  We  deduce  from  it,  first,  as  just  said,  that  the  internal 
unity  and   teleological   character  so  conspicuous  in  these 
narratives  formed  an  integral  part  of  the  tradition,  and  was 
not  put  into  it  by  later  prophetic  manipulation.     It  was 
part  of  the  tradition  as  early  as  the  ninth  century,  when  at 
least  one  of  these  narratives  took  written  shape.     If  here, 
again,  anyone  is  content  to  think  of  what  he  finds  in  the 
J  and  £  histories  as  answering  to  the  idea  of  loose,  popular 
legend,  he  must  be  allowed  to  retain  his  opinion,  but  we 
cannot  share  it.     Legend  does  not  usually  assume  this  char- 
acter of  depth,  coherence,  developing  purpose ;  does  not  em- 
l>ody  ideas,  transactions,  promises,  such  ns  we  find  in  these 
nairatives, — the  protevangelium,  for  instance,  the  call  of 
Abraham,  the  covenants,  the  revelations  at  the  Exodus, — 
containing  in  them  the  germs  of  a  long  future.     If  these 
things  are  there  in  a  "pre-prophetic  "  narrative,  they  clearly 
formed  part  of  the  original  tradition,  and  were  not  put  there 
by  a  later  prophetic  hand. 

(2)  We  deduce,  next,  that  this  tradition,  at  the  time  of 
its  being  written  down  by  J  and  E,  must  already  have 
assumed  a  quite  developed  and  settled  form.     When  we  look 
at  the  range  of  this  J  and  E  history  in  the  Pentateuchal 
books — at  its  rich  content,  at  its  well-developed  biographies, 
with   their   wealth   of    characterisation,   finished   dialogue, 
connection  with  specified  localities  and  situations,  at  its 

1  On  this  point  of  the  faithful  recording  of  the  tradition,  on  which  ranch 
hinges,  we  have  such  testimonies  as  the  following : — 

Dillniann  says  that  E  "preserves  unchanged  in  its  narration*  the 
manner,  tone,  and  colour  of  the  living  legendary  lore  of  the  people." — 
Gbnm.1,  p.  9. 

Gunkel  nays :  "The  legends  of  J  and  E  an  taken  over  by  the  collectors 
tneiUially  at  they  found  them."— Omen*,  Introd.  n.  Ivi. 

Driver  says :  "  J  and  E  give  ns  picture*  of  the  traditions  as  they  were 
current  in  the  early  centuries  of  the  monarchy." — Genen*,  p.  Iviii.  He 
speaks  of  the  indication*  "  that  these  narrators  were  keeping  themselves 
within  the  limits  of  a  tradition  which  they  had  received,  rather  than  freely 
creating  ideal  picture*  of  their  own  "  (p.  zlr). 


70    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

articulated  unity  from  beginning  to  close,  it  seems  clear  as 
day  that  it  is  no  floating,  Protean  legend  we  have  to  deal 
with,  but  a  legend — if  the  critic  will  have  it  so — already 
firmly  fixed  in  outline  and  in  the  bulk  of  its  contents, 
already  clothed  with  flesh  and  blood,  already  as  definite  in 
substance,  if  not  in  form,  as  a  written  narrative  itself  could 
ba  The  loose  way  in  which  many  speak  of  J  and  E  giving 
literary  shape  to  floating,  popular  legends,  as  one  might 
write  down  countryside  fairy  tales,  shows  that  they  have 
never  clearly  apprehended  what  kind  of  history  this  in  the 
JE  narrative  is,  or  what  it  is  needful  to  presuppose  as  the 
condition  of  such  a  history  being  there  to  write.  If  the 
ideas  in  these  writings  were  elaborated  in  any  early 
prophetic  workshop,  how  profoundly  spiritual,  how  deep- 
seeing,  the  minds  in  that  workshop  must  have  been ! 
How  explain  the  presence,  or  prevalence,  of  such  ideas 
in  the  age  of  Elijah  and  Elisha,  on  "Wellhausen's  theory 
of  the  religious  development  and  of  the  state  of  the 
prophetic  orders?1 

(3)  There  is  a  yet  weightier  consideration — one  based 
directly  on  the  critical  hypothesis — which  we  do  not  see 
how  anyone  can  easily  get  over.  It  is  the  fact  that,  on  this 
theory,  we  have  not  one  only,  but  two  histories  of  early 
times  to  reckon  with.  Here,  as  the  critics  tell  us,  are 
two  lengthy  and  practically  independent2  histories,  one 
emanating  from  the  South,  the  other  from  the  North,  at 
a  time  when  (on  the  hypothesis)  the  kingdoms  were 
already  divided,  and  separate  in  interests.  Both  cover  the 
same  ground,  and  give  the  history  of  the  people  for  the 
same  period.  But  now  comes  the  startling  thing  about  them, 
that,  while  two  in  authorship,  place  of  writing,  and  perhaps 
tendency,  these  histories  are,  in  nearly  every  other  respect, 
almost  identical  The  substance  of  the  narrative  is  the 
same,  or  varies  only  in  trifling  details.  They  record  the 
same  incidents,  follow  nearly  the  same  order,  tell  their  story 

1  Elijah  was,  in  Wellhausen's  view,  the  first  to  grasp  the  idea  "  that 
there  exists  over  all  hut  one  Holy  One  and  one  Mighty  One,  who  reveals 
Himself  not  in   nature,  but  in  law  an<l   righteousness,   in   the  world  of 
man." — Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  462.     But  Elijah's  idea  was  not  generally  shared. 

2  Addis  says  that  HupTeld  made  it  plain  "that  each  of  these  documents 
had  once  been  an  independent  work.   — Hex.  p.   xxix.     Gunkel   strongly 
affirms  the  independence  of  the  documents  (Genesis,  p.  Ivii).     Other  critics 
suppose  partial  dependence  of  one  on  the  other.     See  below,  p.  204. 


I.  THE  HISTORY  71 

in  almost  the  same  language.  They  are  parallel  narratives 
in  the  fullest  sense.  The  proof  of  this  lies  in  the  fact  that, 
on  the  critical  view,  these  narratives  have  subsequently  been 
combined,  and  in  the  union,  not  only  is  sometimes  the  section 
of  one,  sometimes  the  section  of  another,  taken  into  the 
record,  but  in  many  chapters  the  two  narratives  are  blended 
line  by  line,  clause  by  clause,  with  such  minuteness,  some- 
what after  the  fashion  of  a  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  or  are 
so  completely  fused  together,  that  the  keen-scented  critics 
often  declare  themselves  baffled  to  separate  them,  and  diller 
widely  in  their  attempts  to  do  so.1  The  reader  has  only 
to  examine  the  analysis  offered  of  such  chapters  as  Gen. 
xxvii.,  xxviii.,  xxx.,  xxxvii.,  to  be  convinced  of  the  truth  of 
what  we  state. 

So  striking  a  class  of  phenomena  naturally  suggests  the 
question  whether  we  are  really  dealing  with  two  documents 
at  all.*  Keeping,  however,  meanwhile  to  the  critical 
hypothesis  as  given,  we  ask — What  follows  from  it?  Two 
things  very  plainly.  In  theirs*  place,  such  phenomena  put 
an  effective  check  on  any  theorist  who  would  contend  that 
the  J  and  £  writers  did  not,  as  we  have  supposed,  faithfully 
reproduce  the  tradition,  but  wrought  it  up  artistically  in  a 
new  form  of  their  own,  as  Shakespeare  might  work  up  the1 
old  stories  of  Macbeth  or  King  Lear,  or  Tennyson  the 
legends  of  King  Arthur.  If  that  were  admissible  for  one 
writer,  it  plainly  would  not  be  admissible  for  two,  working 
independently.  The  fact  that  two  writers — one  Northern, 
the  other  Southern — give  the  same  cycle  of  stories  in  much 
the  same  way,  is  proof  that  both  are  reproducing,  not  in- 
venting. But,  second,  it  proves  also  the  truth  of  what  has 
been  said  above  of  the  fixed  character  of  the  tradition. 
Here,  ex  hypothesi,  we  have  two  writers  setting  down  the 
traditions  current  in  their  respective  localities  and  circles.; 
and  these,  when  compared,  are  found  to  be,  in  the  words  of 

1  On  the  parallelism  of  the  narratives,  we  below,  Chap.  VII.  pp.  218  ff. 
Wellhaua*n,  as  already  noted,  extends  the  parallelism  to  P  ;  we  below,  p.  107. 
Testimonies  as  to  the  clearness  of  the  resemblance,  and  intimate  union,  of 
the  JE  narratives  are  found  in  every  writer.  Dillmann  sap  :  "  It  is  often 
very  difficult  or  impossible  to  make  a  complete  separation  between  them, 
where  their  narratives  have  been  worked  into  each  other  by  later  editor*, 
and  material  criteria  are  wanting. "—OtMott,  p.  14.  Cf.  Gunkel,  Gt*t*u, 
pp.  Iz  ff. ;  and  see  below,  pp.  219  IF. 

*  The  question  is  discussed  in  Chap.  VII.  pp.  210  ff.,  and  there  answered 
in  the  negative. 


72     THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

Klostermann,  "  throughout  parallel." l  The  slight  discre- 
pancies that  are  alleged  are  quite  outweighed  by  the 
substantial  agreement.  Criticism,  therefore,  if  its  division 
of  these  documents  could  be  trusted,  would  furnish  us  with 
a  powerful  corroboration  of  the  genuineness  and  fixed  char- 
acter of  the  tradition  at  a  period  not  later  than  the  ninth 
century  B.C.  It  would  give  us  two  witnesses  instead  of  one.2 

IV.  STEPPING-STONES  TO  EARLIER  DATE  OF  TRADITION 

The  above  results  are  obtained  from  the  simple  con- 
siderations that  our  assumed  documents  antedate  the  age 
of  written  prophecy,  and  that  they  are  two  in  number. 
From  the  vantage-ground  thus  gained,  we  may  now  push 
our  inquiry  into  the  value  of  the  Hebrew  tradition  a  good 
way  further  back.  Obviously  there  is  need  for  doing  this. 
Grant  that  we  have  a  rich,  and  in  the  main  coherent,  tradi- 
tion as  a  possession  of  the  people  of  Israel  in  North  and 
South  as  early  as  the  ninth  or  eighth  century,  it  will  be 
felt  that  we  are  still  a  long  way  from  the  events  them- 
selves to  which  the  tradition  relates,3  and  the  question  may 
properly  be  asked  whether  an  earlier  date  can  be  assigned 
to  the  tradition  than  that  which  we  have  yet  reached  ? 
Conjecture  here  is  of  little  value ;  but  there  are  some  very 
definite  stepping-stones,  to  which  we  may,  we  think,  trust 
ourselves  with  great  confidence. 

1.  It  is  first  to  be  noted  that  the  facts  already  ascertained 
about  the  tradition  of  themselves  carry  us  a  good  way  beyond 
the  dates  assumed  for  the  reduction  of  the  tradition  to 
writing.  The  point  here  is,  that,  whatever  the  date  of 
authorship  of  the  supposed  documents,  the  tradition  itself, 
from  its  fixed  and  settled  character  in  both  branches  of  the 
kingdom,  must  be  much  earlier.  The  tradition  which 
J  and  E  found  did  not  come  into  existence  in  that  year, 
or  that  century.  It  had  a  definite,  stable  form,  which  it 

1  Der  Pentateuch,  p.  10  ;  see  below,  pp.  218-19,  345. 

2  Cf.    Kittel,   Hist,    of   Hebs.    i.   p.    168  ;    Driver,    Genesis,    p.    xliv ; 
West|>hal,  Lei  Sources  du  Pent.  i.  Pref.  p.  xxviii. 

*  Kuenen  asks  in  regard  to  these  narratives:  "Do  we  arrive  at  the 
certainty  of  which  we  are  in  search  witli  regard  to  Israel's  former  history  ? " 
and  he  answers  :  "To  befjin  with,  we  obtain  nothing  but  the  idea  which  was 
entertained  of  that  history  in  the  eighth  [or  ninth]  century  B.C." — Rel. 
of  Israel,  i.  p.  103. 


I.  THE  HISTORY  73 

must  have  possessed  for  a  considerable  time  before,  and 
which  took  a  much  longer  time  to  grow  into  its  settled  shape. 
It  must  have  had  substantially  the  shape  in  which  we  find 
it  before  the  division  of  the  kingdom, — only  thus  can  we 
account  for  its  being  found  in  practically  the  same  form  in 
both  North  and  South, — and  for  the  absence  of  all  allusions 
to  the  division.1  This  means  that  it  was  the  possession  of 
Israel  in  the  days  of  Solomon  and  David :  there  is  no  great 
stretch  of  imagination  in  saying,  even  in  the  days  of 
Samuel  If  it  be  urged  that  this  is  incompatible  with  its 
mode  of  transmission  by  vague  popular  repetition,  it  may 
with  great  cogency  be  replied  that  the  coherence,  consist-' 
ency,  and  persistence  of  the  tradition  may  be  itself  a  proof 
that  it  was  not  left  to  depend  entirely  on  this  mode  of  trans- 
mission, but  already  existed,  in  some  form,  in  written  shape, 
or  was  at  least  the  subject  of  careful  and  continuous  in- 
struction.* 

2.  With  this  has  to  be  taken  into  account  another  fact 
of  great  importance.  We  have  hitherto,  in  deference  to  pre- 
vailing views,  accepted  the  ninth  and  eighth  centuries  as 
the  periods  of  the  composition  of  the  J  and  £  narratives. 
These  dates,  however,  it  is  now  necessary  to  remind  the 
reader,  are  at  most  the  termini  ad  quern  for  the  writing  of 
these  histories.  They  were  not  later  than  850-750  B.C.,  but 
it  does  not  follow  that  they  were  not  much  earlier.  "  The 
terminus  a  quo,"  says  Dr.  Driver,  "  is  more  difficult  to  fix 
with  confidence :  in  fact,  conclusive  criteria  fail  us."  *  The 
statement  that  J  and  £  originated  at  about  the  dates  named 
has  settled  down  into  a  kind  of  commonplace  in  the  critical 
schools ;  yet  it  is  far  from  being  a  secure  result  of  criticism : 
we  should  be  disposed  to  say  it  is  one  of  the  most  insecure. 
If  the  reader  will  consult  the  list  of  dates  formerly  given, 
he  will  see  that  critics  like  Dillmann,  Riehm,  Kittel,  curry 
back  the  date  of  £  as  far  as  900-850  B.C.  ;  Schrader  to 
975-950  B.C. ;  Noldeke  puts  J  about  900  B.C.  ;  Schultz  puts 
J  in  the  reign  of  Solomon,  etc.  Writers  of  older  standing 
went  back  still  further.  Bleek.  e.g.,  put  the  Jehovist  in  the 

1  Stade,  indeed,  think*  that  the  Jacob-Joseph  legend  suppose*  the 
divided  kingdom  (OexhicfiU,  L  p.  128).  This  is  a  good  specimen  of  the 
style  of  argument. 

*  Of.  Oeii.  xriii.  19 ;  Ex.  xii  26,  27  ;  Deut  rt.  7,  20-25 ;  xi.  19  ;  Ps. 
IxxriiL  8,  4. 

*  Introd.  p.  128. 


74    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

reign  of  David ;  Colenso,  in  the  age  of  David  and  Solomon.1 
But  many  recent  writers  also  uphold  a  very  early  date. 
Konig,  e.g.,  thinks  that  E  can  be  placed  with  greatest  cer- 
tainty in  the  time  of  the  Judges ;  J  is  put  by  him  in  the 
reign  of  David.2  Kohler  gives  similar  dates :  E  in  the  time 
of  the  Judges  (c.  1100  B.C.)  and  J  in  the  reign  of  David 
(c.  1000  B.C.).3  Klostermann,  from  an  independent  stand- 
point, attributes  to  the  old  Pentateuchal  history  a  very 
high  antiquity,  the  upper  limit  of  which  cannot  be 
determined.4 

If,  in  surprise,  the  reader  asks  on  what  grounds 
the  dates  have  undergone  so  remarkable  a  lowering  in 
the  Wellhausen  school,  the  answer  is  not  far  to  seek.  It 
is  not  that  any  new  and  revolutionary  discoveries  have 
been  made  as  regards  the  language,  text,  or  contents  of 
the  books.  The  really  determining  factor  will  be  found 
generally  to  lie  in  a  new  theory  of  religious  development? 
combined  with  assumptions  as  to  the  reflections  of  later 
events  (e.g.,  the  wars  of  Syria  with  Israel)  in  the  patriarchal 
stories.6  But  here  again,  as  we  shall  see  more  fully  below, 
the  newest  school  of  all — that  of  Gunkel — comes  in  with 
a  weighty  caveat.  Gunkel  argues  strongly  for  the  "pre- 
prophetic "  character  of  the  narratives ;  finds  the  formation 
of  patriarchal  legends  concluded  as  far  back  as  1200  B.C.  ; 
is  clear  that  their  after  working-up  is  not  later  than  the 
early  kings;  rejects  the  mirroring  of  the  Syrian  wars, 
and  (with  one  exception  due  to  later  addition)  can  discover 

1  Pent.  Pt.  vi.  p.  536.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  all  these  older 
writers  put  the  Elonist  writer  (including  P)  still  earlier  than  J.  Ewald, 
e.g.,  places  his  "Book  of  Origins"  under  Solomon  ;  Colenso  assigns  his  Elo- 
histic  narrative  in  Genesis  to  the  age  of  Saul  and  Samuel  (Pent.  Pt.  vi. 
App.  p.  116). 

^  Einleitung,  p.  205. 

*  Hauck's  Realencyc.  art.  "Abraham,"  i.  p.  102. 

4  Pent.  pp.  77,  219-20.  There  have,  of  course,  always  been  those  also 
who  defended  a  direct  Mosaic  authorship. 

8  Dr.  Driver  says:  "We  can  only  argue  upon  grounds  of  probability 
derived  from  our  view  of  the  progress  of  the  art  of  writing,  or  of  literary 
composition,  or  of  the  rise  and  growth  of  the  prophetic  tone  and  feeling  in 
ancient  Israel.  .  .  .  For  estimating  most  of  which,  though  plausible  argu- 
ments, on  one  side  or  the  other,  may  be  advanced,  a  standard  on  which  we 
can  confidently  rely  scarcely  admits  of  being  fixed." — Introd.  pp.  123-24. 

8  E.g.,  "In  the  story  of  Jacob  and  Laban,  again,  the  contemporary 
background  shines  through  the  patriarchal  history  very  distinctly." — 
Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  I.trael,  p.  323  ;  cf.  Addis,  Hex,  i.  p.  62  ;  Driver,  Qenesit, 
p.  lix.  See  below,  pp.  Ill,  209. 


L  THE  HISTORY  75 

no  indication  of  political  conditions  after  900  B.C.1  It 
need  not  be  said  that  if  dates  such  as  those  preferred  by 
the  above-mentioned  writers  be  admitted,  the  whole  state 
of  the  question  is  revolutionised,  and  we  are  brought  within 
measurable  distance  of  a  period  from  which  sound  tradition 
could  easily  be  preserved.  The  argument  from  the  firmness 
and  consistency  of  the  tradition  acquires  in  that  case 
enhanced  importance. 

3.  The  supposition  is  made  above  that  the  J  and  £ 
histories,  if  the  dates  assigned  to  them  by  the  critics  are 
correct,  were  not  based  wholly  on  oral  tradition,  but  may 
rest  on  older  written  material  as  well  Is  this  entirely 
conjecture  ?  Let  us  see. 

(1)  The  history  of  the  language  affords  the  best  grounds 
for  believing  that  the  history  of  the  people  must  have 
existed  in  some  earlier  written  form.  We  have  argued 
that  the  existence  of  the  tradition  in  a  fixed  and  settled 
form  in  the  ninth  and  eighth  centuries  implies  its  existence 
at  a  long  anterior  period.  But  what  shall  we  say  of  the 
works  J  and  E  themselves,  and  of  the  language  in  which 
they  are  written?  That  language  belongs,  as  we  have 
seen,  "to  the  golden  age  of  Hebrew  literature."*  It  was 
a  fully-formed  literary  language — a  language  with  the  finest 
capabilities  of  historical  narration  already  developed.  How 
did  that  language  come  into  being  ?  Whence  did  it  derive 
its  literary  capabilities  ?  Whence  the  literary  art  and  skill 
to  produce  these  books  we  are  dealing  with?  These  are 
questions  which  seem  often  strangely  ignored.  The  language 
of  Shakespeare  was  not  Shakespeare's  creation  ;  neither  was 
the  language  of  Chaucer,  Chaucer's  creation.  But  here  are 
two  historians — according  to  some,  "  schools  "  of  historians 
— expert  to  the  highest  degree  in  the  use  of  the  pen.  The 
men  who  wrote  the  24th  chapter  of  Genesis — that  "  charm- 
ing idyll,  the  captivating  picture  of  the  wooing  and  bringing 
home  of  Rflbekah"8 — the  story  of  Joseph,  the  dramatic 
scenes  between  Moses  and  Pharaoh,  the  narrative  of  the 
crossing  of  the  Red  Sea,  were  authors  of  the  first  rank. 
How  were  they  created  ?  On  what  models  did  they  work  ? 
Is  it  not  necessary  to  assume  earlier  literature,  and  that, 

1  Centals,  pp.  Ixi,  Ixii.     See  below,  pp.  Ill,  209. 
1  Driver,  Wellbauaan,  see  above,  p.  60. 
*  Delitzach,  Genesis,  ii.  p.  104. 


76    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

too,  of  a  highly  developed  kind, — not  songs  merely,  or  dry 
court  chronicles,  but  historical  compositions, — to  explain  the 
existing  productions  ? 

(2)  But  here,  again,  it  is  important  to  note,  we  are  not 
left  wholly  to  inference  or  conjecture.  The  productions  of 
J  and  E  are  not,  on  the  current  view  of  their  dates,  the 
earliest  specimens  of  Hebrew  literature  we  possess.1  We 
need  not  go  further  than  the  pages  of  Dr.  Kautzsch,  whose 
devotion  to  criticism  will  not  be  doubted,  in  proof  of  this 
statement.  According  to  this  authority,  the  language  was 
already  highly  developed,  and  the  art  of  writing  dis- 
seminated among  the  common  people,2  in  the  time  of  the 
Judges.  The  Song  of  Deborah  in  Judges  v. — "a  poem  of 
priceless  worth,"  "genuine,  splendid  poetry" — is  ascribed 
by  him  to  about  1250  B.C.,  and  the  fable  of  Jotham  (Judjj. 
ix.  7  ff.),  the  artistic  finish  of  which,  he  says,  is  so  high,  and 
the  delicate  satire  so  great,  "  as  again  to  suggest  the  conjec- 
ture that  this  form  of  composition  must  have  been  long 
and  diligently  cultivated,  is  referred  to  the  same  period." 3 
Between  this  and  the  reign  of  David  fall  other  pieces, 
as  the  Song  of  Miriam,  the  poetical  fragments  in  Numbers, 
the  address  to  the  sun  and  moon  in  Joshua.  To  David's 
reign  (1020-980  B.C.)  belong  the  elegies  of  David  on  Saul 
and  Abner,  and  to  the  same  age,  or  that  of  Solomon,  a 
number  of  other  highly  finished  productions.4  The  speech 
of  Solomon  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple,  1  Kings  viii. 
12  ff.  (how  much?)  is  held  to  be  "an  authentic  monument 

1  It  would  scarcely  he  necessary  to  emphasise  this,  but  for  the  suggestion 
in  a  remark  of  Wellhausen's,  that  in  the  interval  between  Elijah  and  Elisha 
and  Amos,  "a  non-literary  had  developed  into  a  literary  age." — Hist,  of 
Israel,  p.  465. 

*  Lit.  of  0.2".,  p.  10;  cf.  Judg.  viii.  14  (R.V.).     Many  critics  carry 
literary  composition  much  further  back.     Ewald,  e.g.,  supposes  Gen.  xlix. 
22-26  to  go  back  to  the  times  before  Moses  (written?). — Revelation:  tw 
Natwe  and  Record  (E.T.),  p.  323.     Delitzsch  thinks  the  Song  and  Blessing 
of  Moses  may  have  been  written  l>y  him. — Genesis,  i.  p.  45,  etc. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  4,  5.     Kautzsch  thinks  it  probable,  however,  "that  we  must 
come  down  to  the  time  of  David  for  the  writing  out  of  the  products  of  those 
earlier  days  "  (p.  10.    Why?).     Stade  also  says  the  Song  of  Deborah  bears 
traces  of  having  been  composed  under  the  immediate  impression  of  the 
victory  it  records.     See  the  remarkable  list  of  testimonies  on  this  point  in 
Konig's  art.   "Judges,"  in  Diet,  of  Bible,  ii.  p.  813.     Professor  Robertson 
thinks  the  Song  "may  have  come  down  in  writing  from  that  period." — 
Early  Religion,  p.  79. 

4  He  includes  here  the  Blessing  of  Jacob,  and  the  original  form  of  the 
Balaam-Discourses. 


I.  THE  HISTORY  77 

of  the  reign  of  Solomon." l  Then  we  come  to  the  so-called 
"  Hero-Stories  "  of  the  Book  of  Judges,  and  to  the  "  Jerusalem- 
Stories,"  the  "  David-Stories,"  and  the  "  Saul-Stories,"  which 
make  up  a  large  part  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  These  are 
placed  between  933-911  B.C.— the  "Saul-Stories"  a  few 
years  later.*  The  "  Jerusalem-Source  "  is  assigned  "  to  the 
period  immediately  after  Solomon,"8  and  is  described  ae 
"one  of  the  most  complete,  truthful,  and  finished  pro- 
ducts of  historical  writing  which  have  come  down  to  us 
from  the  Hebrews,  and  indeed  from  the  whole  ancient 
world."* 

Here  then  we  have  the  language  nearly  in  its  prime 
carried  back  to  the  thirteenth  century  B.C.,  with  a  long 
cultivation  necessarily  preceding, — are  brought,  in  short, 
almost  to  the  verge  of  the  Exodus.  Are  we  to  suppose 
that  all  this  while  nothing  was  done  to  produce  some 
records  of  the  people's  history,  of  the  events  of  the  Exodus, 
which  admittedly  so  deeply  moved  them,6  and,  beyond  that, 
of  the  traditions  of  the  fathers?  To  us  this  appears  so 
incredible,  that,  even  if  no  literature  existed  which  seemed 
to  require  such  records  for  its  explanation,  we  should  be 
forced  to  suppose  that  they  once  existed,  but  had  unfortu- 
nately become  lost.  Much  more  are  we  driven  to  assume 
them,  if  regard  is  had  to  the  mass  of  the  tradition,  and 
to  the  clearness,  coherence,  and  religious  importance  of  its 
contents,  so  different  from  what  forms  the  staple  of  popular 
oral  legend.  It  is  not  a  conclusive  answer  to  this  to  say 
that  we  have  no  direct  evidence  of  the  existence  of  such 
records.  If  the  essential  parts  of  such  records  are  in- 
corporated in  the  works  we  have,  it  can  readily  be  understood 
why  they  should  drop  out  of  memory  and  use ;  •  or  it  mayt 
turn  out  in  the  end  that  the  so  -  called  J  and  E  arel 
themselves  such  records, — that  is,  we  may  be  compelled  by| 
the  internal  character  of  the  history  to  antedate  its  written 

lLU.ofO.  T.,  p.  12  ;  of.  p.  1 77.     Set  below,  p.  102. 

» Ibid.  pp.  178-79.  •  Ibid.  p.  27. 

4  Ibid.  p.  25.  Dr.  Driver  nays  of  this  narrative  (2  Sam.  ix.-xx.) :  "The 
abundance  aud  particularity  of  detail  show  that  the  narrative  must  date 
from  a  period  very  little  later  than  that  of  the  events  related.  The  style 
is  singularly  bright,  flowing,  and  picturesque," — Introd.  p.  183. 

•See  below,  pp.  100 If. 

•Thus  the  voluminous  records  which  nnderlie  the  historical  books 
(Samuel,  Kings,  Chronicles,  etc.)  hare  perished  :  so  also  the  early  attempt* 
at  the  composition  of  written  Gospels  (Luke  i.  1). 


78    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

form,  and  to  revise  our  conceptions  of  the  literary  capabilities 
of  an  earlier  age.1 

(3)  A  third  consideration  under  this  head  remains.  The 
use  of  earlier  records  in  the  composition  of  J  and  E  is  not 
a  hypothesis  opposed  to  critical  science :  it  is  one  to  which 
adherents  of  the  critical  school  in  perhaps  increasing  number 
are  coming  back.  Not  to  speak  of  others  more  conservative, 
such  writers  as  Delitzsch  always  insisted  on  the  use  of 
ancient  material,  part  of  it  Mosaic,  in  the  Pentateuch ; 
but,  as  representing  a  newer  position,  we  may  instance 
Kittel.  "  Certain  it  is,"  this  writer  says, "  that  such  sources, 
probably  even  in  documentary  form,  to  some  extent,  lay 
before  E  as  well  as  J.  ...  In  many  cases  it  seems 
demonstrable  that  E  worked  in  accordance  with  sources 
that  were  ancient,  and  in  part  very  ancient.  And  further, 
where  this  cannot  now  be  discerned,  we  may  accept  his 
descriptions  as  resting  on  older  material,  oral  or  written, 
except  where  there  are  conclusive  reasons  of  a  special 
kind  to  the  contrary."  2 

V.  CORROBORATIVE  EVIDENCE  OF  EARLY  DATE  OF  SOURCES 

There  are,  we  would  say  in  concluding,  three  things 
which  strongly  corroborate  the  positions  we  have  laid 
down. 

1.  The  first  is  the  enormous  increase  of  light  which  recent 
i  discovery  has  cast  on  the  very  early,  and  indeed  common,  use 
of  writing,  and  high  development  of  literature  in  the  ancient 
East.  We  return  to  this  subject  in  a  later  chapter,8  and  only 
here  anticipate  the  general  result.  The  discoveries  amount 
to  a  revolution  in  old  beliefs,  and,  as  scholars  are  beginning 
to  recognise,  alter  the  perspective  of  everything  that 
relates  to  arts,  laws,  and  letters  in  the  early  parts  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Culture  and  writing  are  carried  back  in 
Babylonia  to  an  almost  fabulous  antiquity — millenniums 

1  This,  it  will  be  seen  after,  is  what  we  take  'to  be  the  true  solution. 
The  classic  period  of  the  JE  writings  does  not  then  come  after,  but,  as  seems 
most  reasonable,  lies  behind  the  flourishing  age  of  Kautzsch's  "Jerusalem- 
Source."  Can  it  be  thought  likely  that  such  skill  should  be  bestowed  on 
the  reign  of  David,  while  the  whole  wonderful  past  of  the  nation  stood 
neglected  T 

•  Hist.  ofHebt.  i.  pp.  90,  95. 

*  Chap.  XI.,  where  details  are  given. 


I.  THE  HISTORY  79 

before  the  days  of  Abraham,  and  the  age  of  Abraham  itself 
is  shown  by  the  Code  of  Hammurabi  and  the  contract 
j  tablets  of  the  same  age  to  have  been  one  of  highly-developed 
civilisation  and  general  enlightenment.  In  Egypt  we  find 
that  the  hieroglyphic  system  was  already  complete  by  the 
time  of  Menes,  founder  of  the  first  dynasty  (c.  4000  B.C.)  ; 
in  Canaan,  as  the  Tel  el-Amarna  tablets  discover  to  us, 
epistolary  correspondence  was  freely  carried  on  about 
1400  B.C..  in  the  Babylonian  language  and  cuneiform 
character ; l  Crete  is  proved  to  have  been  the  abode  of  an 
advanced  culture  long  before  the  age  of  Moses :  if  Dr. 
Glaser's  speculations  are  correct,2  the  inscriptions  of  the 
kingdom  of  Maon  in  South  Arabia  are  possibly  as  old  as  the 
Exodus.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  this  wholly  unexpected 
light  on  the  all  but  universal  diffusion  of  letters  in  the 
ancient  world*  puts  the  problems  of  the  patriarchal  and 
Mosaic  times  in  an  entirely  new  setting.4  It  is  no  longer 
sufficient  to  reply  that  a  nomad  people  like  the  Hebrews 
was  an  exception  to  the  general  rule.  The  nomad  theory  ? 
rests  on  the  critic's  own  assumptions,  and  is  of  no  force  * 
against  the  indications  of  the  history  itself.6  Moses  was  not 
a  nomad,  but  is  figured  as  "  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of 
the  Egyptians."  6  Joseph  and  his  family  were  not  nomads, 
and  the  position  of  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt  under  Joseph's 
rigvme  must  have  been  one  of  great  honour  and  influence,7 
2.  The  progress  of  discovery,  again,  has  brought  to  light 

1  Dr.  Sayce  goes  so  far  as  to  say  of  Canaan  :  "  Schools  and  libraries,  in 
fact,  must  have  existed  everywhere,  and  tin-  art  of  reading  and  writing  must 
have  been  as  widely  spread  aa  it  was  in  Europe  before  the  days  of  the 
penny  iwet." — Higher  Crit.  p.  67  ;  cf.  his  Early  Israel,  Introduction. 

1  Cf.  Sayce,  Higher  CriL  pp.  89  ff. 

*  Sayce  says:  "From   one  end  of  the  civilised  ancient  world   to  the 
other  men  and  women  were  reading  and  writing  and  corre*|»onding  with 
one  another  ;  schools  abounded  and  great  libraries  weic  formed,  in  an  age 
which    the    critic    only  a    few    yean    ago  declared   was    almost    wholly 
illiterate." — Monument  Fact*,  p.  42. 

4  "  According  to  all  analogy,"  says  Professor  Kittel,  "  we  may  henceforth 
expect  that  in  the  case  of  Biblical  science  also,  the  stakes  may  I*  pushed 
farther  forward  and  the  cord*  much  further  lengthened  than  anxious  minds 
were  im-pare-l   for,  and   that,  too,   without  leaving    the  gmund    of   the 
historically  possible  and  admissible.     If  in   the  case  of  Hellas  and  the 
Islands  the  second   millennium  before  Christ  is  no  longer  absolutely  a      ' 
terns  incognita,   in  all  probability   the  presumably  older  culture  •  field  ol    * 
Syria  and  Pale-tine  will  be  still  b-a«  so."— Babyl.  Excar*.  pp.  17,  18. 

•  See  below,  pp.  104,  1S4.  •  Acts  vii.  22. 
1  Gen.  1.  7-11.     Cf.  Hummel,  Ancient  Htb.  Trad.  p.  229. 


80    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

so  much  minutely  confirmatory  of  the  historical,  geographical, 
and  ethnographical  data  of  the  early  parts  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, that  the  assumption  of  early  records  seems  indispens- 
able to  explain  how  such  knowledge — often  antiquarian  and 
obsolete — has  been  preserved.  Such ,e.g.,  is  the  light  thrown 
on  the  historical  conditions  in  the  account  of  the  expedition 
of  Chedorlaomer  in  Gen.  xiv. ;  or  on  the  remarkable  state- 
ments in  Gen.  x.  as  to  the  origin  and  relations  of  the  most 
ancient  peoples ;  or  on  the  vivid  picturing  of  Egyptian  life 
and  customs  in  the  history  of  Joseph,  and  in  the  narratives 
of  Moses  and  the  Exodus.1 

3.  Lastly,  there  is  the  evidence  of  the  Biblical  narratives 
themselves  as  to  the  early  use  of  writing  in  Israel.  Thus 
far  we  have  refrained  from  drawing  on  the  Biblical  history, 
but,  in  an  inquiry  of  this  kind,  its  evidence  cannot  in 
fairness  be  disregarded.  It  is  not  to  be  thought  of,  that, 
while  every  scrap  of  testimony  from  profane  sources  is 
welcomed,  and  made  the  most  of,  the  Scriptures  alone  are  to 
be  treated  like  criminal  suspects,  whose  every  word  is  to  be 
doubted,  unless  hostile  cross-examination  fails  to  shake  it, 
or  independent  confirmation  of  it  can  be  produced.2  Like 
other  witnesses,  the  Biblical  writers  are  entitled  to  be  heard 
with  a  prima  facie  presumption  of  their  honesty.  It  is  the 
case,  then,  that  writing  and  written  records  are  frequently 
referred  to  in  the  Pentateuchal  narratives.  Not,  indeed,  in 
the  patriarchal  narratives  —  an  internal  mark  of  their 
truthfulness 8 — but  in  the  age  of  Moses  and  Joshua,  Ee- 
peatedly  things  are  said  to  be  written,  or  are  commanded 
to  be  written.  Writing  is  implied  in  the  name  of  the 
"  officers  "  (Shoterim  =  scribes) 4  set  over  the  Israelites  in 
their  bondage.  No  inconsiderable  amount  of  written  matter 
is  directly  ascribed  to  Moses,  creating  the  presumption  that 
there  was  more,  even  when  the  fact  is  not  directly  stated. 
Moses  wrote  "  all  the  words  of  Jehovah "  in  the  "  Book 
of  the  Covenant."5  He  was  commanded  to  write  in  a 

1  See  below,  Chap.  XI.  pp.  413ff. 

*  Cf.  Ladd.  Doct.  of  Sac.  Scripture,  i.  p.  345.     Ladd  quotes  Leasing  on 
the  N.T.  :  "If  now   Livy  and  Dionysius  and   Polybius  and  Tacitus  are 
treated  so  frankly  and  nobly  that  we  do  not  put  tliem  to  the  rack  for  every 
syllable,  why  not  also  Matthew  and  Mark  and  Luke  and  John  f " 

*  Cf.  Delitzsch,  Genesis,  i.  p.  8.     But  see  below,  p.  375.     The  argument 
from   silence  is  precarious,  and    Babylonian  analogy  would   suggest  that 
writing  would  be  used  in  such  a  contract  as  that  in  Gen.  xxiii. 

4  Ex.  v.  6,  14,  etc.  »  Ex.  xxiv.  4,  7. 


L  THE  HISTORY  81 

(the)  book  the  decree  against  Amalek.1  He  wrote  "  the 
goings-out"  of  Israel  from  Egypt,  "according  to  their 
journeyings."  f  There  was  a  written  register  of  the  seventy 
elders.8  He  wrote  "  the  words  of  this  law  "  at  Moab,  "  in  a 
book  until  they  were  finished,"4  and  also  wrote  his  "  Song," 
and  "taught  it  to  the  children  of  Israel"*  "All  the 
words  of  this  law"  were  to  be  written  on  stones  at 
Mount  Klial,6  and  the  Book  of  Joshua  records  that  this  was 
done.7  Joshua  assumes,  in  conformity  with  Deut.  xxxi.  24- 
26,  the  existence  of  a  "  book  of  the  law,"  and  it  is  said  of 
Joshua's  own  address  to  the  people  that  "he  wrote  these 
words  in  the  bonk  of  the  law  of  God."  All  this,  as  we  now 
know,  is  in  keeping  with  the  state  of  culture  at  the  time,8 
and  lends  support  to  the  view  that  much  first-hand  material 
from  the  Mosaic  age  is  substantially  preserved  in  the  books 
which  refer  to  this  period. 

The  conclusion  we  draw  from  the  whole  discussion  is, 
that  the  view  is  untenable  which  regards  the  Biblical 
history  of  Israel's  early  condition  and  religious  development 
as  a  projection  back  on  patriarchal  times  of  the  ideas 
of  the  prophetic  age.  Even  accepting  the  critical  pre- 
mises— in  part  by  help  of  them — we  are  warranted  in  the 
belief  to  which  we  were  led  by  the  consideration  of  the 
organic  and  purposeful  character  of  the  Old  Testament 
narrative  itself,  that  it  is  a  faithful  representation  of  the 
actual  course  of  the  early  history  of  the  people.  This  con- 
clusion will  obtain  confirmation  from  the  detailed  examina- 
tion which  follows. 

>  Ex.  xvii.  14.  •  Num.  xxxiii.  2. 

•  Nam.  zL  26.  4  Deut  xxxi.  9,  24,  20. 

•  Deut.  xxxi.  19,  22.  •  U-'Ut.  xxvii.  8. 

•  Joeh.  viii.  80-85.     S«e  below,  p.  263. 

•Referring  to  the  Tel  el-Amarna  discoveries,  Professor  Robertson  says  : 
"We  need  no  longer,  theielore,  wonder  that  among  the  towns  taken  by 
Jo«haa  was  one  called  Kirjath-Sepher,  Book-town  (Josh.  xv.  15  ;  Judg.  i. 
11),  or  Kiriath-Saunah  [City  of  Instruction}  (Josh.  xv.  49) ;  or  that  a  lad 
caught  at  the  roadside  was  able  to  write  down  the  names  of  the  chief  men  of 
Succoth  in  the  time  of  the  Judges  (Judg.  viii.  14.B.V.)." — Early  Reliyion, 
p.  78.  See  further  on  Hebrew  writing  in  Chap.  JL  below,  pp.  874-6. 


CHAPTER   IV 

TEestament  as  affectefc  bs  Criticism— 
TTbe  "fcistory :  Counter-TIbeories 


"The  characteristic  of  the  Israelitish  mind  was  an  outlook  into  the 
future.  .  .  .  Was  the  case  different  with  Abraham  ?  If  he  was  anything 
like  that  character  which  these  early  histories  describe  him  to  have  been, 
nothing  would  seem  more  natural  than  that  he  should  be  made  to  know 
what  the  goal  was  to  be  to  which  his  history  looked.  One  can  scarcely 
explain  how  Israel  came  to  -direct  its  attention  to  Canaan  when  it  escaped 
from  Egypt,  unless  it  had  some  tradition  of  its  destiny  alive  in  it" — 
A.  B.  DAVIDSON. 

"Abraham  in  that  early  dawn  of  history,  with  polytheism  and  idolatry 
all  around  him,  saw  his  own  creed  triumphant  in  the  world  ;  he  predicted 
its  triumph,  and  the  prediction  has  as  a  matter  of  fact  come  true.  It  is 
triumphant.  The  creed  of  Abraham  has  become  the  creed  of  the  civilised 
world.  The  patriarch's  creed  has  been  victorious  over  the  idolatry  of  the 
human  race,  and  grown  from  a  deposit  in  the  breast  of  one  man  into  a 
universal  religion." — MOZLEY. 

"There  are  certain  points  which  all  the  sources  take  for  granted  as 
firmly  established  by  tradition :  namely,  that  Moses,  of  the  tribe  of  Levi, 
was  the  first  to  proclaim  Jahweh  as  the  God  of  the  whole  people  of  Israel, 
and  as  their  Deliverer  from  the  bondage  of  Egypt ;  that  at  Sinai  he  brought 
about  the  conclusion  of  a  '  covenant '  between  Jahweh  and  Israel ;  that  he 
at  least  laid  the  foundation  of  the  judicial  and  ceremonial  ordinances 
in  Israel,  and  that  he  left  behind  him  more  or  less  copious  notes  on  all 
thi»." — KAUTZSCH. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM 
— L  THE  HISTORY:  COUNTER-THEORIES  TESTED 

IT  is  necessary  now  to  widen  our  argument,  and  look  more 
closely  at  the  construction  of  the  history  which  the  radical 
criticism  opposes  to  the  Biblical — to  test  its  grounds,  and 
weigh  the  force  of  the  considerations  which  are  thought  to 
be  fetal  to  the  latter.  This  will  afford  us  opportunity  of 
reinforcing  our  previous  conclusions,  and  will  prepare  the 
way  for  the  discussion,  in  succeeding  chapters,  of  the  bear- 
ing of  critical  principles  on  religion  and  institutions. 

I.  RIVAL  CONSTRUCTIONS  AS  DEPENDENT  ON  THEIR 
PRESUPPOSITIONS 

It  was  pointed  out  in  the  first  chapter1  that  nearly 
everything  in  the  critical  discussion  of  the  history  and 
religion  of  the  Old  Testament  depends  on  the  presup- 
positions with  which  we  start.  If  the  Old  Testament  is 
read  in  the  light  of  its  own  presuppositions, — which,  surely, 
in  the  first  instance,  is  not  an  unfair  thing  to  ask, — its 
contents  present  a  very  different  aspect  from  what  they  do 
if  read  in  the  light  of  principles  which  contradict  these 
presuppositions.  Let  one  assume,  and  hold  fast  by  the 
idea,  that  there  has  really  been  a  great  scheme  of  historical 
revelation  extending  through  successive  dispensations,  and 
culminating  in  the  Incarnation  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  many 
things  will  appear  natural  and  fitting  as  parts  of  such 
a  scheme,  which  otherwise  would  be  rejected  as  incredible, 
or  be  taken  account  of  only  to  be  explained  away. 

It  need  not  surprise  us,  therefore,  that,  rejecting  the 
Biblical  presuppositions,  the  more  radical  criticism  rejects 

1  See  above,  p.  14. 

88 


86    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

of  necessity  the  history  which  depends  on  these,  and,  for 
the  picture  of  the  origins  of  Israel,  and  of  Mosaic  times, 
given  in  the  Old  Testament,  substitutes  another  and  very 
different  one,  evolved  from  its  own  assumptions.  For  it, 
the  unhistorical  character  of  the  Biblical  narratives  is 
decided  before  the  inquiry  begins.  Israel,  on  its  view, 
emerges  from  the  dim  past  as  a  loose  aggregation  of  tribes ; 
polytheists,  or  at  least  monolaters ;  not  a  people  chosen  and 
called  of  God,  with  the  memory  of  a  past,  and  the  con- 
sciousness of  a  future,  but  a  horde  of  semi-barbarians, 
sharing  the  ordinary  Semitic  ideas,  customs,  and  super- 
stitions, and  indebted  for  what  rudiments  of  culture  they 
ultimately  came  to  possess  to  the  more  advanced 
Canaanites.  There  was  no  revelation;  everything 
happened  by  natural  development.  It  is  obvious  that 
such  a  people  could  not  have  had  the  history  which 
the  Bible  ascribes  to  it.  With  such  a  theory  in  the  back- 
ground of  his  mind,  and  consciously  or  unconsciously  used 
as  the  standard  of  his  judgments,  the  critic  has  no  alterna- 
tive but  to  regard  the  stories  he  is  dealing  with  as  a 
bundle  of  legends.  The  sole  question  he  has  to  ask 
himself  is,  How  did  such  legends  come  to  be  formed  ? 
What  tribal  reminiscences  may  be  supposed  to  shimmer 
through  them?  The  paradoxical  thing  is,  when  his  con- 
clusions are  taken  over  by  those  who  do  not  share  his 
presuppositions,  and  receive  endorsement  as  the  results 
of  the  latest  critical  scholarship! 

When,  however,  as  just  said,  the  standpoint  is  reversed, 
and  we  look  at  the  matter  from  the  Bible's  own  point  of 
view,  things  appear  very  differently.  Assume,  for  instance, 
what  is  the  Bible's  own  assertion,  that  God  did  really 
call  this  man  Abraham,  and  make  His  covenant  with  him, 
— assume  that  this  was  a  grave,  serious  transaction,  of  the 
utmost  moment  to  Abraham  himself,  to  his  posterity,  and 
to  mankind,  and  was  felt  to  be  so, — assume  that  it  was 
required  of  him  that  he  should  diligently  train  his  children 
and  his  household  after  him  in  the  knowledge  of  it,1 — then, 
can  it  be  doubted  that  the  utmost  pains  would  be  taken 
to  preserve  and  transmit  faithful  accounts  of  these  doings, 
till  such  time  as  a  permanent  record  could  be  made  of 
them;  and  does  not  the  patriarchal  history,  with  its  rich 
1  Cf.  Gen.  xviii.  18,  19. 
rt- 


I.  THE  HISTORY  87 

biographies,  and  impregnation  with  covenant-ideas,  present 
precisely  the  character  we  might  expect  in  such  a  record  ? 
Assume,  again,  that  the  Exodus  really  took  place  in  some 
such  way  as  the  Bible  relates, — that  Jehovah,  the  covenant- 
keeping  God  of  the  fathers,  really  revealed  Himself  to 
Moses,  and  really  brought  the  people  out  of  Egypt  with 
wonderful  manifestations  of  His  power  and  grace, — we  have 
only  to  ask  the  question,  Could  the  people  ever  forget  it  ? 
to  see  how  impossible  is  the  supposition.  We  shall  then 
cease  to  wonder  at  the  graphic  narratives  which  have  come 
down  to  us  from  that  soul-stirring  time,  and  will  be  ready 
to  see  in  them  a  faithful  reflection  of  the  consciousness 
of  the  period. 

All  this,  naturally,  is  folly  to  the  newer  critical  school ; 
for  does  it  not  imply  those  higher  religious  ideas,  and  that 
"  familiar  intercourse  of  the  Deity  with  the  patriarchs," l 
which  Kuenen  tells  us  are  conclusive  marks  of  the  un- 
historical  character  of  the  narratives  ?  We  are  not  without 
hope  that  a  different  impression  may  be  produced  by  a 
candid  examination  of  the  grounds  of  his  objections. 

The  foregoing,  it  should  be  noticed,  yields  us  the  right 
point  of  view  for  answering  the  question  sometimes  asked 
— In  what  sense  do  we  speak  of  "  history "  in  these  early 
parts  of  the  Bible  ?  So  far  we  must  agree  with  the  critics 
when  they  remind  us  that  the  history  in  the  Bible  is 
religious  history — that  is,  not  bare  narratives  of  outward 
occurrences,  as  an  ancient  chronicler,  or  modern  newspaper 
reporter,  might  set  them  down,  but  history  written  from  a 
religious  standpoint,  for  purposes  of  edification,  and  reflect- 
ing in  its  story  the  impression  on  the  mind  of  the  beholder 
and  on  the  writer,  as  well  as  the  objective  fact.  As 
respects  the  early  periods,  it  follows  from  what  has  been 
said,  and  is  evident  of  itself,  that  what  we  have  to  do  with 
is,  for  the  most  part,  not  contemporary  narration,  but 
history  in  the  form  of  carefully  preserved  tradition, — not, 
indeed,  as  the  critics  will  have  it,  mere  floating  folk-lore, 
but  sacred  tradition  of  real  events  and  transactions  in  the 
lives  of  real  men,  and  of  God's  revelations  and  dealings 
with  them — tradition  on  which  we  can  rely  as  faithfully 
conveying  to  us  the  contents  of  God's  message  to  them  and 
to  ourselves  —  yet  still  tradition,  having  the  rounded, 

1  Rei.  of  Imutl,  i.  p.  108.    8«e  above,  p.  00. 


88    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

dramatic  character  which  narratives  naturally  assume  as 
the  result  of  repeated  telling,1  and  recorded  in  the  form  in 
which  they  finally  reached  the  literary  narrator.  Such 
transmission  may  not  exclude  a  measure  of  "  idealisation," 
and  reflection  of  later  ideas  and  conditions;  but  this,  we 
are  persuaded,  to  a  far  smaller  extent  than  many — even 
believing  writers — suppose.  The  view  of  the  history  thus 
indicated  we  now  proceed  to  vindicate. 

II.  THEORY  THAT  PATRIARCHS  WERE  NOT  INDIVIDUALS, 
BUT  "  PERSONIFICATIONS  " 

An  interesting  light  is  thrown  on  the  method  of  un- 
proved assumption  and  arbitrary  hypothesis  by  which,  as 
we  think,  much  of  the  work  of  this  newer  criticism  is  done, 
in  what  Kuenen  adduces  as  his  "  principal  cause  of  hesita- 
tion "  in  accepting  the  patriarchal  narratives,  viz.,  that  the 
actors  in  them  "  have  one  characteristic  in  common — they 
are  all  progenitors  of  tribes."  He  infers  from  this  "  that  the 
narratives  in  Genesis  present  us,  not  with  real  historical 
personages,  but  with  personifications." 2  Since  the  days  of 
Ewald  the  theory  of  personification  has  been  a  favourite  one 
with  critical  writers,  though  generally  there  has  gone  with 
it,  as  in  the  case  of  Ewald  himself,  the  recognition  of  a  basis 
of  real  personal  history  in  the  narratives.  Wellhausen,  Stade, 
and  the  more  thorough-going  members  of  their  school,  how- 
ever, make  no  such  reservations.  With  them  all  historical 
reality  is  given  up,  —  logically  enough,  for,  if  individual 
progenitors  of  tribes  are  admitted  at  all,  a  main  foundation 
of  the  theory  is  destroyed, — and  only  collective  names,  and 
reflections  of  tribal  relations  and  characteristics  remain.8 
Wellhausen  actually  thinks  that  Abraham  was  a  compara- 

1  Dr.  John  Smith,  in  his  Integrity  of  Scripture,  p.  38,  speaks  of  the 
Pentateuch,  which  he  upholds  as  "a  credible  and  substantially  con- 
temporary record  of  a  true  revelation  of  God  to  Moses,  and  through  Moses 
to  Israel,"  as  "  incorporating  the  sacred  family  traditions  of  earlier 
revelations." 

*Xel.  of  Israel,  i.  pp.  109-112. 

*  Cf.  Euenen,  trf  supra  ;  Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  318  ff.  ;  Stade, 
Creschichte,  pp.  28  ff. ;  Gunkel,  Genesis,  Introd.  ;  Guthe,  art.  "  Israel," 
Ency.  Bib.  (also  arts,  on  Patriarchs) ;  Cornill,  Hist,  of  Israel ;  H.  P.  Smith, 
O.T.  Hist.  pp.  38  ff.,  etc.  For  criticism  of  the  theory,  cf.  Konig's  Neueste 
Prinzipien,  pp.  85  ff. ;  Kohler,  art.  "Abraham"  in  Hauck's  Bealeneyc. ; 
Robertson's  Early  Eel.  pp.  121  ff.,  etc. 


L  THE  HISTORY  89 

tively  late  "  free  creation  of  unconscious  art " ;  *  others  can 
persuade  themselves  that  even  Amos  and  Hosea  did  not 
regard  the  patriarchs  as  individual  persons.1  It  is  well  that 
Kueneu  should  tell  us  that  this  is  his  strongest  proof,  for, 
in  testing  his  chain  in  its  firmest  link,  we  are  better  enabled 
to  judge  of  its  strength  as  a  whole. 

The  theory,  then,  is,  that  the  patriarchs  were  not  actual 
individuals,  but  "  personifications  "  of  tribes.  To  the  critic's 
mind  nothing  could  be  simpler  or  more  demonstrable.  "  To 
the  Oriental,"  says  Professor  H.  P.  Smith,  "it  is  natural 
to  speak  of  the  clan  as  an  individual.  .  .  .  The  common 
method  of  our  Hebrew  writers  was  to  personify  clans, 
tribes,  nations,  or  geographical  divisions,  and  treat  them 
as  individuals."8  No  shade  of  doubt  is  held  to  rest  on 
this  conclusion.  "  What  interests  us  here  is  the  fact  that 
the  patriarchs  cannot  be  taken  as  individuals.  If  individuals 
licuben,  Gad,  and  Judah  never  existed,  it  is  plain  that 
individuals  Jacob,  Esau,  and  Abraham  cannot  have  any 
more  substantial  reality.  We  have  to  do  here  with  figures 
of  the  poetic  or  legend -building  imagination."4  Let  us 
look  at  the  reasons  by  which  these  confident  assertions  are 
supported. 

1.  The  theory  has  its  starting-point  in  the  statement 
that  the  names  of  the  patriarchs  in  the  history  are  not  in- 
dividual, but  tribal.  But  this,  to  begin  with,  is  onljj>a.rJa§l]j 
tr^ie.  Of  the  majority  of  the  progenitors  of  tribes  (e.g.,  Dan, 
Gad,  Naphtali),  little  is  recorded  save  the  names ;  of  a  few 
(Judah,  Simeon,  Reuben),  only  special  incidents;  of  the 
three  great  patriarchs — Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob — on  the 
other  hand,  and  of  Joseph,  we  have  full  and  detailed  bio- 
graphies. But,  as  has  often  been  pointed  out,  neither 
Abraham  nor  Isaac6  gave  their  names  to  tribes;  Joseph, 
also,  did  not  do  so  directly,  but  only  through  his  sons, 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh.  Lot  is  not  the  name  of  any  tribe, 
though  this  "weak-kneed  saint,"  as  Wellhausen  calls  him, 

1  Hi*,  o/lorael,  p.  320. 

*  H.  P.  Smith  UTS  :  "  Amc*  and  Hoaea  at  anyrate  had  little  idea  of  the 
patriarchs  as  individual  men."— 0.7*.  J/itt.  p.  88.  So  fiuthe,  etc. 

»  Ibid.  pp.  88,  89.  «  Und.  p.  42. 

'  In  AnvM  rii.  10  the  designation  "  house  of  Inaao"  is  nafd,  bat  for  the 
whole  nation,  and  plainly  with  reference  to  the  HiHiral  statement*  as  to 
the  relation  of  Isaac  to  Jacob.  No  light  is  thrown  from  the  history  of  the 
tribes  on  the  origin  of  the  name. 


90    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

is  the  father  of  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites.  Neither 
does  Esau  give  his  personal  name  to  his  descendants,  the 
Edomites.  Even  of  Jacob,  whose  names  (Jacob,  Israel) 
became,  quite  naturally  and  reasonably  on  the  Biblical  view, 
those  of  the  nation,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  he  is  regarded,  not 
as  the  founder  of  a  special  tribe,  but  as  the  progenitor  of  the 
individual  tribes  from  whose  union  the  nation  was  formed. 
His  name  and  character,  therefore,  can  hardly  have  been 
a  mere  abstraction  from  the  nation  collectively.  There 
seems,  indeed,  to  be  now  evidence  that  both  his  name,  and 
those  of  Abraham  and  Joseph  (with  Ishmael,  and  others) 
were  proper  names  in  use  in  Babylonia  and  Palestine  from 
early  times.1 

Abraham,  as  might  be  expected,  is  a  special  difficulty  to 
the  theory.  He  is,  as  Wellhausen  owns,  "  a  little  difficult 
to  interpret." 2  We  have  just  seen  that  his  name  is  not  a 
designation  of  either  tribe  or  nation :  neither  is  Isaac's. 
The  critic  is  therefore  driven,  as  above  hinted,  to  suggest 
that  he  is  "  a  free  creation  of  unconscious  art " ; 3  later  than 
Isaac.4  But  then  how  explain  these  long  and  detailed 
biographies,  which  bear  so  inimitable  a  stamp  of  reality, 
yet  have  so  little  to  suggest  the  reflection  of  the  features 
of  a  later  age  ?  For  here  again  the  theory  is  in  difficulty. 
"  It  is  remarkable,"  confesses  Wellhausen,  "  that  the  heroes 
of  Israelitish  legend  show  so  little  taste  for  war,  and  in  this 
point  they  seem  to  be  scarcely  a  true  reflection  of  the 
character  of  the  Israelites,  as  known  from  their  history.  .  .  . 
The  patriarchs,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  are  all  peace- 
loving  shepherds,  inclined  to  live  quietly  beside  their  tents, 
anxious  to  steer  clear  of  strife  and  clamour.  .  .  .  Brave 
and  manly  they  are  not,6  but  they  are  good  fathers  of 
families,"6  etc.  There  are  evidently  knotty  problems  still 

1  In  a  list  of  Thothmes  in.  (e.  1480  B.c.)  there  occur  the  names  Jacob-el 
and  Joseph-el  (the  latter  doubted  by  some),  as  those  of  places  in  Central 
Palestine.  Much  earlier,  in  Babylonian  contract  tablets  (c.  2200  B.C.),  are 
found  the  names  Jacob,  Jacob-el,  and  the  name  Abe-ramu,  similar  to 
Abraham.  See  below,  Chap.  XI.  pp.  409-10. 

3  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  320.     The  idea  that  Abraham  was  the  name  of  a 
"god  "  has  been  very  generally  abandoned,  but  is  now  revived  by  Winckler  ; 
see  above,  p.  59. 

*Ibid. 

4  Professor  Robertson  pertinently  remarks  :  "One  would  like  to  know  how 
much  of  the  story  of  Isaac,  aa  a  popular  legend,  would  be  comprehensible 
without  reference  to  that  of  Abraham." — Rel.  of  Israel,  p.  125. 

•  See  below,  p.  109.  8  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  320-21. 


I.  THE  HISTORY  91 

unsolved  on  the  theory  that  the  history  is  simply  a  form  of 
"  ethnographic  genealogy." 

2.  A  special  proof  of  the  personifying  tendencies  of  the 
Hebrew  writers  is  sought  in  the  forms  of  some  of  the 
Scripture  genealogies.     These,  it  is  pointed  out,  are  frequently 
ethnographical,  not  individual.    A  familiar  example  is  the 
"  table  of  nations  "  in  Gen.  x.    When,  e.g.,  one  reads  there : 
"  The  sons  of  Ham ;    Gush,  and  Mizraim,  and  Phut,  and 
Canaan.  .  .  .  And  Mizraim  begat  Ludim,  and  Anamim,  and 
Lehabim,  and  Naphtuhim.  .  .  .  And  Ganaan  begat  Sidon  his 
first-born,  and  Heth,  and  the  Jebusite,  and  the  Amorite,  and 
the  Girgashite," l  etc.,  everyone  readily  perceives,  that  not 
individual  persons,  but  nations  or  tribes,  are  meant.     The 
genealogies  bear   their  ethnographic  character  upon  their 
face.     But  all  genealogies  are  not  of  this  nature;  and  the 
existence  of  such  tables  no  more  proves  that  Abraham  and 
Sarah,  Isaac  and  Eebekah,  Esau  and  Jacob,  Joseph  and  his 
brethren,  Moses  and  Aaron,  were  not  real  persons,  than  it 
proves,  say,  that  Elkanah  was  not  the  father  of  Samuel,  or 
Eli  of  Hophni  and  Phinehas,  or  Jesse  of  David,  but  that  in 
all  these  cases  we  are  dealing  only  with  tribal  abstractions. 
We  do  not  suppose,  e.g.,  that  when  we  read,  "  Salmon  begat 
Boaz,  and  Boaz  begat  Obed,  and  Obed  begat  Jesse,  and  Jesse 
begat  David," 2  we  have  before  us  a  scrap  of  "  ethnographic 
genealogy,"  because  elsewhere  it  is  said  that  Canaan  begat 
the   Jebusite  and   the   Amorite.    When   we   find   richly- 
developed  biographies  like   those  of  Abraham  and  Jacob 
attached  to  such  names  as  "  Mizraim,"  or  "  Ludim,"  or  "  the 
Girgashite,"  it  will  be  time  to  consider  the  analogy.8 

3.  The  crowning  support  for  the  personification  theory 
is  sought  by   Kuenen,   Stade,   Guthe,  and   others,   in   an 
assumed  law  of  the  growth  of  societies.     "  New  nations,"  Stade 
says, "  never  originate  through  rapid  increase  of  a  tribe  ;  new 
tribes  never  through  derivation  from  a  family  propagating 
itself  abundantly  through  several  generations."  *      To  which 
Konig  aptly  replies  :  "  Often  as  I  have  read  these  sweeping 
statements,  I  have  always  missed  one  trifle  :  I  never  found 
a  proof  of  this  thesis."6    Such  a  proof,  in  fact,  is  not  to  be 

1  Gen.  x.  «,  18,  15,  1«.  »  Ruth  iv.  21,  22. 

*  See  farther  illustration  in  Note  A — Konig  on  the  Personification  Theory. 
4  Ottehifhle,  i.  p.  28.     Cf.  Kuenen'a  Ktl.  of  Itrael,  i.  p.  40. 

•  NeuesU  Prinzipien,  p.  36. 


92     THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

found;  for  none  can  be  offered  which  does  not,  as  in  the 
present  case,  assume  the  thing  to  be  proved.  As  a  general 
dictum  on  the  origin  of  society,  its  truth  would  be  disputed 
by  many  far  better  entitled  to  be  listened  to  on  the  subject 
than  Stade.  H.  S.  Maine,  for  instance,  in  his  book  on 
Ancient  Law  :  its  Connection  iuith  the  Early  History  of  Society, 
maintains  the  directly  opposite  thesis.  To  him  the 
"  patriarchal  theory  "  of  the  origin  of  society  is  the  one 
which  best  accords  with  all  the  facts.  Jurisprudence,  he 
affirms,  is  full  of  the  clearest  indications  that  society  in 
primitive  times  was  not  a  collection  of  individuals,  but 
an  aggregation  of  families.  "  The  unit  of  an  ancient  Society 
was  the  Family.  .  .  .  The  elementary  group  is  the  Family, 
connected  by  common  subjection  to  the  highest  male 
ascendant.  The  Aggregation  of  Families  forms  the  Gens  or 
House.  The  Aggregation  of  Houses  makes  the  Tribe.  The 
Aggregation  of  Tribes  constitutes  the  Commonwealth."1 
Allowing,  however,  what  is  probably  the  truth,  that  society 
does  not  follow  everywhere  the  same  law  of  growth,  we  are 
still  in  no  way  shut  up  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  not 
thus  that  the  Hebrew  nation,  under  its  peculiar  conditions 
of  call  and  destiny,  did  develop.  The  development  from 
the  one  chosen  individual  into  the  many,2  in  fulfilment  of 
promise,  is  the  most  natural  thing  imaginable,  provided  the 
nation's  own  account  of  its  antecedents  and  mission  to  the 
world  is  accepted.  The  history  here  is  in  complete  harmony 
with  itself.  From  the  earliest  period  to  which  we  can  trace 
back  the  Hebrew  tribes,  they  are  "  the  sons  of  Israel,"  and 
of  what  that  title  meant  they  believed  themselves  to  have 
the  clearest  historical  recollection.  Why  should  that 
recollection  not  be  trusted,  and  designations  like  "  house  of 
Jacob,"  "  house  of  Isaac,"  "  seed  of  Abraham,"  not  be  allowed 
to  mean  what  they  obviously  suggest,  and  were  always 
believed  to  mean  —  that  the  people  were  historically  de- 
scended from  these  patriarchs,  instead  of  being  twisted  into 
proofs  that  these  progenitors  of  the  race  never  existed  ? 

The  result  to  which  we  are  thus  far  led  is  that  the  newer 
criticism  is  unsuccessful  in  its  attempt  to  make  out  the 
patriarchs  to  be  "not  persons,  but  personifications."  The 


,  Law,  pp.  126,  128. 

*  Isa.  li.  1,  2  :  "  When  he  was  but  one,  I  called  him,  and  i  blessed  him, 
and  made  him  many." 


I.  THE  HISTORY  93 

patriarchs,  in  the  Biblical  view,  are  both  persons  and  pro- 
genitors of  tribes,  and  there  is  no  necessary  contradiction 
between  the  two  things.  It  is  to  be  anticipated  that 
ancestral  traits  will  reappear  in  the  descendants,  and  it  is 
not  inadmissible  to  suppose  that  characteristics  of  the 
descendants,  to  some  degree,  will  be  found,  designedly  or 
unconsciously,  reflected  in  the  portraiture  of  the  progenitor 
— as,  for  instance,  in  the  cases  of  Ishmael  and  Esau.1  In 
this  sense  there  may  be  an  element  of  "  idealisation  "  in  the 
narratives,  as  there  is,  in  fact,  in  every  good  painting,  or 
every  good  biography,  of  a  person  who  has  become  historical. 
This  does  not  detract  from  the  fidelity  of  the  history,  but 
enhances  it  by  interpreting  its  inner  significance,  and 
investing  it  with  the  charm  of  literary  art. 

III.  WITNESS  OF  ISRAEL'S  NATIONAL  CONSCIOUSNESS  : 
THE  PATRIARCHS 

There  is  another  branch  of  the  critical  method  on  which 
it  is  proper  that  something  should  now  be  said.  This  relates 
to  the  point  just  touched  on — the  testimony  of  the  national 
consciousness  of  Israel  to  its  own  past. 

It  was  seen  above  that  exception  is  taken  to  the  high 
religious  ideas  ascribed  to  the  patriarchs,  and  to  the  stories 
of  the  divine  communications  made  to  them.  The  question 
of  the  early  religion  of  Israel  will  be  investigated  in  next 
chapter.  Meanwhile  it  may  be  permitted  to  remark  on 
Kuenen's  dictum  that  "at  first  the  religion  of  Israel  was 
polytheism,"  that  that  can  hardly  be  a  sure  result  of  criticism 
which  many  of  the  most  distinguished  critics  of  both  past 
and  present  times  energetically  repudiate.  Ewald  was  free 
enough  in  his  treatment  of  the  history,  but  he  had  no  doubt 
of  the  existence  of  the  patriarchs,  or  that  they  "  thought  and 
spoke  monotheistically."  *  Dillmann,  and  Delitzsch,  and 
Eiehm  were  critics,  but  none  of  them  would  assent  to  the 
propositions  of  the  Kuenen  school  about  the  religion  of 
early  Israel  As  little  would  Konig,  or  Kittel,  or  Baethgen, 
or  Klostermann,  or  Oettli,  or  the  late  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson, 
or  many  others  that  might  be  named.  Dilhuaun  may  !>•• 
quoted  in  this  connection  as  an  example.  "  If  anyone." 
he  says, "  desires  to  maintain  that  this  representation  reals 

1  Cf.  Gen.  zri.  11,  12  ;  xxrii.  40.  >  Hi*,  of  Imul,  i.  p.  820. 


94    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

only  on  an  idealising  conception  of  later  writers,  and  is  not 
to  be  accepted  as  historical,  it  must  be  contended  in  opposi- 
tion that  not  merely  Genesis,  but  the  whole  Old  Testament, 
speaks  of  a  covenant,  of  a  peculiar  relation  in  which  God 
stood  with  the  fathers,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob ;  that 
Moses  attached  himself  with  his  work  to  the  God  of  the 
fathers;  that  without  this  attachment  his  work  would  be 
incomprehensible ;  that,  therefore,  even  if  Genesis  had  said 
nothing  on  the  subject,  we  should  be  compelled  to  postulate 
a  certain  acquaintance  of  these  fathers  with  the  living  God, 
a  higher  faith  in  God." x 

This  deep  consciousness  which  the  Israelites  possessed 
throughout  their  history  of  their  origin  from  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  of  the  peculiar  favour  of  God  to  these 
fathers  of  their  race  in  making  His  covenant  with  them, 
might  be  deemed  an  irrefragable  argument  for  the  truth  of 
the  Biblical  representations.  So  in  reality  it  is ;  but  it  is 
essential  to  the  modern  critical  view  that  the  argument 
should  be  deprived  of  its  force,  and  the  method  by  which  this 
is  sought  to  be  accomplished  is  an  excellent  example  of  the 
arbitrariness  we  complain  of  in  the  critical  procedure.  The 
aim  is  to  show  that  the  references  to  the  patriarchs  and 
their  doings — even  to  Moses — are  so  late  as  to  deprive  them 
of  all  value,  and  the  means  employed  for  this  end  is  the 
summary  excision  from  the  text  of  all  passages  that  speak 
to  the  contrary  as  later  additions.  It  is  a  method  beautiful 
in  its  simplicity,  easily  worked,  and,  when  applied  with 
sufficient  courage,  as  it  is  in  both  history  and  prophets, 
never  fails  in  silencing  all  opposing  witness.2 

1.  We  begin  by  giving  two  examples  of  the  application 
of  this  method  to  the  prophets.  "  A  striking  fact  is,"  says 
Professor  H.  P.  Smith,  "  that  none  of  the  prophets  allude  to 
Abraham  till  we  come  to  Ezekiel.  The  weight  of  this  in  an 
inquiry  into  the  historicity  of  the  patriarchs  can  hardly  be 

1  Alttcst.  Theol.  p.  82  ;  cf.  pp.  414-15.  Cf.  Klostermann's  Gcschichte  de» 
Volkes  Israel,  pp.  28  if.  Klostermann  rejects  as  an  "absolutely  irrational 
opinion"  the  view  that  the  patriarchs  are  mythical  forms,  and  contends  that 
only  grounds  of  real  tradition  could  have  led  the  people  to  se-i,  not  in  Moses, 
who  actually  formed  them  into  a  nation,  but  in  fathers,  shar  jy  distinguished 
from  Moses,  and  living  in  quite  other  times  and  relatiur  /the  founders  of 
their  monotheistic  religion. 

*  It  need  scarcely  be  said  that  our  remarks  are  not  intended  to  apply 
to  soberly-directed  attempts  to  correct  errors  or  corruptions  in  the  Hebrew 
text,  which  reliable  evidence  shows  to  be  really  such.  See  Note  H  to  Chap.  X. 


I.  THE  HISTORY  95 

over-estimated." l  Wellhausen,  who,  as  we  saw,  is  disposed 
to  regard  Abraham  as  "  a  free  creation  of  unconscious  art," 
similarly  writes:  "The  later  development  of  the  legend 
shows  a  manifest  tendency  to  make  Abraham  the  patriarch 
par  excellence,  and  cast  the  others  into  the  shade.  In  the 
earlier  literature,  on  the  other  hand,  Isaac  is  mentioned 
even  by  Amos.  Abraham  first  appears  in  Isa.  xl.-lxvi."  *  The 
two  statements,  it  may  be  observed,  are  not  quite  in 
harmony,  for  Ezekiel,  in  which  the  one  critic  allows  a 
reference  to  Abraham,  is  at  least  earlier  than  the  date 
assumed  by  Wellhausen  for  Isa.  xL-lxvl,  where,  on  his 
showing,  Abraham  first  appears.  The  passage  in  Ezekiel 
(chap,  xxxiii.  24)  reads :  "  Abraham  was  one,  and  he  inherited 
the  land."  Even  on  the  meagre  footing  of  these  passages, 
it  might  be  urged,  we  would  not  be  without  important 
witnesses  to  the  singular  place  occupied  by  Abraham  in  the 
Israelitish  tradition. 

But  are  the  facts  as  stated?  If  we  take  the  Hebrew 
text  as  it  stands,  they  certainly  are  not.  We  go  back  to 
Jeremiah,  and  there  read,  chap,  xxxiii.  26  :  "  I  will  take  of  his 
seed  to  be  rulers  over  the  seed  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob."  We  go  back  a  stage  further,  to  the  earlier  Isaiah, 
and  there  read,  chap.  xxix.  22:  "Jehovah  who  redeemed 
Abraham."  We  turn  to  Isaiah's  contemporary,  Micah,  and 
read,  chap.  viL  20  :  "  Thou  wilt  perform  the  truth  to  Jacob, 
and  the  mercy  to  Abraham,  which  Thou  hast  sworn  to  our 
fathers  from  the  days  of  old."  Here,  then,  are  passages 
which  directly  contradict  the  categorical  assertions  of  the 
critics:  how  are  they  dealt  with  ?  In  the  simplest  possible 
fashion,  by  denying  that  they  should  be  there.  Thus,  to  his 
statement  that  no  prophet  prior  to  Ezekiel  alludes  to 
Abraham,  Professor  H.  P.  Smith  calmly  appends  the  foot- 
note :  "  The  present  text  shows  two  passages,  Micah  vii.  20 
and  Jer.  xxxiii.  26,  but  both  are  confessedly  (?)  late  additions 
to  the  prophetic  text."  s  Wellhausen  is  equally  summary  : 

1  O.T.  Hist.  p.  49  ;  cf.  p.  38.  »  Hist,  of  Itrael,  p.  810. 

*  As  above.  The  whole  passage  Jer.  xxxiii.  14-'26  u  omitted  in  the 
LXX,  which  otherwise  takes  extensive  liberties  with  the  text  Kut  no  food 
ground  exinta  for  its  rejection  from  the  !M>rew  text.  Graf  defends  it,  an-i 
Ewald  says:  "Nothing  is  so  perverse  and  groundless  as  to  find  in  this 
passage,  or  generally,  in  chaps,  xxx. -xxxiii.,  additions  by  a  later  prophet. ** — 
Dit  Propheten,  ii.  p.  268.  The  remaining  passages  are  in  the  LXX  as  well 
as  in  the  Hebrew. 


96    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

"Micah  viL  20,"  he  says,  "belongs  to  the  exile,  and  the 
words  '  who  redeemed  Abraham '  in  Isa.  xxix.  22  are  not 
genuine:  they  have  no  possible  position  in  the  sentence." 
To  which  it  may  be  as  summarily  replied,  that  there  is  no 
convincing  reason  for  changing  any  of  the  passages, — if 
reason  at  all,  except  in  the  critic's  own  caprice.  Even 
Kuenen,  in  his  Religion  of  Israel,  accepts  as  genuine  the 
passages  to  which  Wellhausen  takes  exception.1  Gunkel, 
one  of  the  newest  and  most  radical  of  critics,  enters  a  much- 
needed  protest  against  the  whole  system  of  procedure.  "  The 
author,"  he  says, "  at  this  point  cannot  conceal  his  conviction 
that  the  reigning  school  of  literary  criticism  is  all  too  zealous 
to  explain  as  not  genuine  the  passages  which  do  not  exactly 
fit  in  with  its  construction  of  the  history,  or  which  are  hard 
to  be  understood  by  the  modern  investigator,  and  that  a 
powerful  reaction  must  follow  on  the  period  of  this  criticism."2 
2.  It  is  now  to  be  remarked,  however,  that  even  if  the 
critics  were  right  in  their  assertion  that  there  are  no  express 
allusions  to  Abraham  in  the  prophets  prior  to  the  exile,  no 
such  dire  results  would  follow  for  the  historicity  of  the 
patriarchs  as  the  authorities  we  have  quoted  imagine. 
Direct  allusions  in  the  prophets  are,  after  all,  only  a  fraction 
of  the  evidence,  and  hardly  affect  the  force  of  the  argument 
from  the  national  recollection  of  Israel.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  to  be  observed  that  where  allusions  to  Abraham  do 
occur,  it  is  always  as  to  a  person  well  known,  and  enshrined 
in  the  highest  honour  in  the  memory  of  the  people.  It  is 
no  stranger  that  is  being  introduced  to  them.  Israel  is 
"  the  seed  of  Abraham  My  friend."  3  They  are  exhorted  to 
look  to  Abraham  their  father,  and  to  Sarah  that  bare  them, 
and  are  reminded  for  their  encouragement,  how,  when  he 
was  but  one,  God  called  him,  and  blessed  him,  and  increased 
him.*  He  was  one,  and  he  inherited  the  land.6  It  is 
declared  that  God  will  perform  tbe  truth  to  Jacob,  and  the 
mercy  to  Abraham,  which  He  had  sworn  to  their  fathers 
from  the  days  of  old."  But  further,  these  patriarchs  appear 

1  Rel.  of  Israel,  i.  p.  101.  Another  historical  passage  in  Micah,  chap.  vi. 
3,  4,  declared  by  some  to  be  late,  is  also  accepted  by  Kueneu  in  this  work 
(p.  113). 

8  Genesis,  p.  113.  Gunkel's  own  methods,  as  will  be  seen  after,  are 
sufficiently  arbitrary. 

8  Isa.  xli.  8  ;  cf.  Ixiii.  16.  4  Isa.  li.  1,  2. 

•  Ezek.  xxxiii.  24.  •  Mic.  rii.  20. 


I.  THE  HISTORY  97 

as  figures  in  a  connected  history,  and  whatever  in  the 
prophets  implies  acquaintance  with  part  of  that  history  may 
fairly  be  regarded  as  implying  knowledge  of  the  rest,  at 
least  in  its  main  features.  The  admitted  allusions  to  Isaac 
and  Jacob,  for  instance,  and  to  incidents  in  the  life  of  the 
latter,1  inferentially  imply  some  knowledge  of  Abraham  as 
well. 

But  this  is  by  no  means  the  whole.  Nothing  is  surer  in 
criticism,  as  was  shown  in  the  last  chapter,  than  that,  by  the 
time  of  Amos  and  Hosea — i.e.,  long  before  the  time  of  the 
exile — written  histories  of  the  patriarchal  period  existed, 
and  were  in  circulation,  embodying  the  current  tradition  of 
the  nation,2  in  which  Abraham  plays  so  prominent  a  part. 
"  When  stories  were  told  of  Isaac  and  Ishmael,  and  Lot  and 
Esau,"  says  Wellhausen  himself,  speaking  of  a  time  when, 
as  he  thinks,  the  stories  only  circulated  orally,  "  everyone 
knew  at  once  who  these  personages  were,  and  how  they  were 
related  to  Israel,  and  to  one  another."*  Is  it  credible 
that  the  same  should  not  be  true  of  Abraham?  What 
stories  of  Isaac,  or  Ishmael,  or  Lot,  could  be  in  currency  in 
the  days  of  the  monarchy,  which  did  not  imply  a  knowledge 
of  that  patriarch  ?  Or  what  stories  could  be  told  of  Joseph 
which  did  not  bring  in  Jacob,  and  Judah,  and  Reuben,  and 
Benjamin,  and  the  patriarchs  generally  ? 4  Then  what  of  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy  ? — a  prophetic  book,  on  the  theory  of 
the  critics,  yet  based  upon,  and  saturated  with  allusions  to, 
this  whole  earlier  history,  including  the  Abrahamic  covenant 
and  promises.5  Is  not  this  book  before  Ezekiel,  or  Isa. 
xL-lxvl,  as  the  critics  date  the  latter?  What,  in  view  of 
such  facts,  becomes  of  Professor  H.  P.  Smith's  "  can  hardly 
be  over-estimated"  in  relation  to  the  historicity  of  the 

1  E.g.,  Amos  vii.  9,  16  (Isaac) ;  Ho*,  xii.  3-5,  12. 

*  Professor  W.  R.  Smith  says  that  the  story  of  the  patriarchs  "is  still 
recorded  to  us  as  it  lived  in  the  mouths  of  the  people.  .  .  We  still  read  it 
very  much  as  it  was  read  or  told  in  the  house  of  Joseph  in  the  days  of  Amos 
and  Hoses,  "—Prophet*,  pp.  116,  117. 

•  JRst  o/Itratl,  p.  333. 

4 Professor  Bennett  says:  "The  story  of  Joseph  may  be  taken  as  the 
account  of  events  which  really  happened  to  a  historical  individual,  Joseph, 
who  really  existed.  Such  history  might  l>e  supposed  to  be  accurate  in 
every  detail  by  those  who  held  the  strictest  theory  of  verbal  inspira- 
tion."— Gciu*u,  p.  47.  But  how  much  of  the  remaining;  history  is  involved 
in  that  of  Joseph  1  If  he  is  historical,  Jacob,  Judah,  Reuben,  etc..  an  no 
longer  "personifications." 

'  Deut.  i.  8,  vi.  10,  etc. 


98    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

patriarchs,  —  because,  as  he  alleges,  nothing  is  heard  of 
Abraham  before  Ezekiel  ?  Does  not  the  use  of  such 
language  recoil  rather  on  himself  as  showing  his  singular 
lack  of  perspective  in  dealing  with  the  subject  ? 

IV.   MOSES   AND  THE  EXODUS 

To  the  testimony  which  the  prophets  and  related  writings 
bear  to  the  period  of  the  patriarchs  falls  to  be  added  that 
of  the  later  historical  books,  and  of  the  psalms.1  Here, 
however,  we  prefer  to  cast  a  glance  at  the  Mosaic  period, 
to  which  objections  of  the  same  kind  are  made,  and  to  which 
the  same  general  considerations,  based  on  the  immovable 
certainty  of  the  consciousness  of  the  nation  as  to  its  own 
past,  apply.  Attention  is  naturally  concentrated  in  this 
connection  on  two  things — the  personality  of  Moses,  and 
the  great  deliverance  of  the  Exodus. 

1.  If  there  is  one  personage  in  Hebrew  history  about 
whose  character  and  doings  it  might  be  supposed  without 
doubt  that  every  Israelite  had  some  knowledge,  that  person 
is  Moses.  Yet  in  regard  to  Moses  also  we  have  occasionally 
the  suggestion  that  the  earlier  prophets  knew  little  or 
nothing  about  him;2  and  particularly  it  is  argued  that 
only  in  the  latest  period  is  he  definitely  connected  with  a 
code  of  laws.  Thus  in  an  authoritative  work  we  read: 
"  The  indications  of  subsequent  literature  suggest  that  Moses 
was  only  gradually  connected  by  tradition  with  the  pro- 
duction of  a  continuous  body  of  legislation.  .  .  .  Even  to 
the  author  of  Isa.  Ixiii.  11  Moses  is  the  heroic  leader 
under  divine  guidance  to  whom  Israel  owed  its  liberty 
rather  than  its  laws.  Malachi  is  the  first  of  the  prophets 
to  refer  to  a  Mosaic  code  (iv.  4)."  8 

This  appears  to  us,  in  the  light  of  admitted  facts,  to 
be  remarkable  reasoning.  We  go  back  again  to  the  Book 

1  Pas.  xlvii.  9,  cv.  9,  42,  etc.     On  the  Psalms,  see  Chap.  XII. 

3  Mic.  vi.  4,  with  its  explicit  reference  to  Moses,  Aaron,  and  Miriam,  is 
declared  to  be  an  interpolation.  Ghillany,  an  oMer  writer,  cannot  find 
Moses  named  in  the  prophets  before  Malachi.  Cf.  Konig's  Hauptprobleme, 
pp.  15,  16.  Yet  besides  Mic.  vi.  4,  which  Kuenen  accepts  as  genuine, 
there  is  Isa.  Ixiii.  11,  and  the  reference  to  Moses  in  Hos.  xii.  13.  Even 
Kautzsch,  however,  who,  on  the  whole,  stands  up  for  a  higher  conception 
of  Moses,  arbitrarily  declares  the  passage  in  Hosea  to  be  an  interpolation 
("  Rel.  of  Israel,"  Diet.  p.  625). 

*  Carpenter,  Oxf.  Hex.  i.  p.  19. 


I.  THE  HISTORY  & 

of  Deuteronomy,  alleged  by  critics  to  be  a  work  of 
14  prophets,"  which,  in  any  case,  came  to  light  in  the  days 
of  Josiah.  This  book,  in  point  of  form,  is  a  repromulgation 
by  Moses  in  the  steppes  of  Moab  of  the  commandments, 
statutes,  and  judgments  received  by  him  thirty-eight  years 
before  from  God  in  Horeb.  and  by  him  then  communicated  to 
the  people.  In  it,  it  will  hardly  be  denied,  Moses  appears 
pre-eminently  as  the  lawgiver.  But  the  book  itself,  it  is 
now  well  recognised,  presupposes  the  older  code  of  laws 
in  the  "Book  of  the  Covenant"  of  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  More- 
over, not  only  are  the  laws  Mosaic,  but  both  the  "  Book  of 
the  Covenant,"  and  the  "  law  "  of  Deuteronomy,  are  declared 
to  have  been  written  by  Moses.1  What  then  does  the  writer 
of  the  above-quoted  passage  mean  by  saying  that  "  for  the 
pre-exilian  seers  there  was  no  fixed  and  definite  'law' 
recorded  in  precise  and  definite  form  "  ?  *  Was  Deuteronomy 
not  a  law-book  ?  The  Mosaic  authorship  of  Deuteronomy 
and  of  the  "  Book  of  the  Covenant "  may  be  disputed  ;  but 
can  it  be  denied  that  "  tradition  "  at  any  rate  had  by  that 
time  come  to  regard  Moses  as  a  lawgiver,  and  in  the  fullest 
and  most  "  definite "  way  ascribed  the  laws  of  the  nation 
to  him,  or  to  God  through  him  ?  There  is  the  further 
argument  from  the  JE  histories.  Already  in  these  histories, 
which  antecede  the  time  of  written  prophecy,  and  extend, 
in  the  view  of  the  critics,  to  the  conquest,  there  is 
embodied  the  whole  history  of  the  Exodus,  of  the  lawgiving 
at  Sinai,  of  the  covenant,  of  the  events  of  the  wilderness, 
of  the  entrance  into  Canaan.  How  then  could  any  Israelite 
or  prophet  of  that  or  any  subsequent  time  possibly  be 
ignorant  of  the  role  of  Moses  as  a  lawgiver  ?  How  could 
the  writer  of  Isa.  Ixiii.  11  be  ignorant  of  it  ?  It  is  amazing 
that  the  critics  do  not  see  more  clearly  the  force  of  their 
own  admissions  in  these  matters.  If  Deuteronomy  was 
promulgated  in  the  reign  of  Josiah ;  if  the  JE  histories 
existed  a  century  and  a  half  earlier ;  it  is  a  strange  in- 
consequence to  talk  of  the  paucity  of  references  in  the 
prophets  before  Malachi  as  showing  that  Moses  was  not 

1  Ex.  xzir.  4  ;  Deut  xxxi.  24.     See  below,  Chap.  VIII.  pp.  262  ff. 

'  As  above.  Kautzscli  says  :  "  Over  against  thin  [tu-anty  mention]  must 
be  set  the  fact  that,  throughout  the  Old  Tertament,  ail  the  various  legisla- 
tions ...  are  amid  to  have  born  introduced,  and  in  part  even  written 
down  by  him."—"  Bel.  of  Israel,"  Diet,  p.  626. 


100    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

connected  in  the  Israelitish  mind  with  the  work  of 
legislation.1 

The  basis  of  the  argument  is  greatly  strengthened,  if, 
from  the  references  to  legislation,  we  extend  our  view  to 
the  related  history.  Here,  again,  it  is  to  be  remembered, 
the  history  goes  in  a  piece.  The  people  who  knew  of  the 
Exodus,  of  the  Red  Sea  deliverance,  and  of  the  wilderness 
journeyings,  knew  also  of  Sinai,  of  the  covenant  of  their 
nation  with  God,  and  of  the  commandments  and  laws  on 
which  the  covenant  was  based.  It  seems  futile  to  contend, 
with  Professor  W.  R.  Smith,  that  "  the  early  history  and  the 
prophets  do  not  use  the  Sinaitic  legislation  as  the  basis  of 
their  conception  of  the  relation  of  Jehovah  to  Israel,  but 
habitually  go  back  to  the  deliverance  from  Egypt,  and  from 
it  pass  directly  to  the  wilderness  wanderings  and  the 
conquest  of  Canaan."2  The  Levitical  legislation,  if  that 
is  meant,  the  history  and  prophets  do  not  use, — no  part  of 
Scripture  uses  the  Levitical  law  as  the  basis  of  God's 
relation  to  Israel, — but  it  is  hard  to  see  how  anyone  can 
imagine  that  either  prophets  or  people  could  be  familiar 
with  the  Exodus  and  the  wilderness  wanderings,  and  leave 
out  of  view,  or  be  indifferent  to,  that  which  forms  the 
kernel  of  the  whole  history, — the  covenant  which  God 
made  with  the  nation  through  Moses;  when,  as  Jeremiah 
says,  He  "  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  from  the 
iron  furnace,  saying,  Obey  My  voice,  and  do  them  [the  words 
of  the  covenant],  according  to  all  which  I  command  you";8 
or  when,  as  Hosea  expresses  it,  He  espoused  the  nation  to 
Himself  in  the  wilderness,  in  the  days  of  its  youth.*  Are 
we  to  suppose  that  the  prophets  (even  Jeremiah)  were 
ignorant  of  the  recapitulation  of  the  law  of  Horeb  in 
Deuteronomy  ? 

2.  It  is  true,  nevertheless,  that  the  great  fact  in  which  the 
consciousness  of  Israel  ever  rooted  itself,  as  that  which  first 
gave  the  nation  its  freedom,  and  made  it  a  nation,  was  the 
Exodus,  with  which  is  constantly  associated  the  deliverance 
at  the  Red  Sea.  It  was  remarked  at  the  beginning  that  we 
have  only  to  reflect  on  the  nature  of  such  an  event  as  the 

1  The  position  of  Moses  as  legislator  is  further  discussed  in  Chap.  VI. 
Of.  pp.  151  ff. 

'Prophttt,  p.  111.  *  Jer.  xi.  4. 

4  Hos.  ii.  15  ;  cf.  viii.  1.  The  passages  are  among  those  cited  by  Pro- 
fessor Smith  himself.  See  Note  B  on  the  Covenant  with  Israel. 


L  THE  HISTORY  101 

Exodus  to  see  that,  if  it  really  happened,  it  could  never 
•gun  be  forgotten  by  the  people  whose  redemption  it  was. 
s.-me  things  in  a  nation's  history  may  be  forgotten;  of 
others  the  memory  is  indelible.  Could  the  English  people 
ever  forget  the  Normans  and  the  Conquest;  the  Scottish, 
Bannockburn  or  Flodden,  or  the  events  of  their  Reforma- 
tion ;  Americans,  Bunker's  Hill  or  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  ?  Yet  these  are  small  matters  compared 
with  what  the  Exodus,  and  the  events  which  followed  it, 
were  to  the  Israelites.  When  we  turn,  accordingly,  to  the 
poetical  and  prophetical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  we 
find  that,  amidst  all  the  vicissitudes  in  their  fortunes,  the 
memory  of  the  Exodus,  with  its  attendant  circumstances, 
never  was  obliterated,  but  remained  fresh  and  green  in  the 
minds  of  the  people  as  long  as  their  national  life  lasted. 
In  song,  and  psalm,  and  prophecy,  the  echoes  of  this 
wonderful  deliverance  in  Egypt  and  at  the  Red  Sea  ring 
down  their  history  till  its  close.1  The  same  difficulty  meets 
us  here,  indeed,  as  before,  that  the  historical  and  prophetical 
books  are  not  allowed  to  be  used  as  witnesses  till  they  have 
been  critically  adjusted,  and,  in  the  multitude  of  editors 
and  redactors  among  whom  their  contents  are  parcelled  out, 
it  is  never  hard  to  find  a  way  of  getting  rid  of  an  incon- 
venient testimony.  Apart,  however,  from  the  direct  narra- 
tives, which,  in  their  freshness,  force,  and  dramatic  power, 
speak  so  unmistakably  to  the  liveliness  of  the  impression 
under  which  they  were  composed,  the  literature  en  bloc  is  a 
witness  to  the  vivid  recollection  of  the  essential  facts.  An 
old  monument  is  the  Song  of  Miriam  at  the  Red  Sea,  in 
Ex.  xv.,  the  genuineness  of  which  there  are  no  good  grounds 
for  disputing.2  Joshua  and  Samuel  go  back  on  these  facts 
in  rehearsing  the  great  deeds  of  God  for  their  nation.* 

»  Cf.  Ex.  XT.  ;  Josh,  xxir.  4-7 ;  1  Sam.  xii.  8  ff. ;  1  Kings  viii.  18, 
51-53;  Pas.  xliv.  1,  Ixxvii.  12-20,  Ixxviii.,  etc.;  Anma  ii.  9,  10;  Hon. 
xi.  1  ;  xii.  13  ;  I«a.  li.  9,  10  ;  Jer.  ii.  6,  etc. ;  Deut.  iv.  34  ;  xvi.  8,  8,  IS  ; 
xxvi.  6,  etc. 

1  Dr.  Driver  says :  "  Probably  the  greater  part  of  the  Song  is  Mosaic,  and 
the  modification  or  expansion  is  limited  to  the  closing  verses  ;  for  the 
general  style  is  antiqnc,  and  the  triumphant  tone  which  pervades  it  is 
just  such  as  might  naturally  have  been  inspired  by  the  event  which  it 
celebrate*." — lntrod.  p.  30. 

'  References  aa  above.  Josh.  xxiv.  is  usually  ancribrd  by  the  critics  to 
E,  with  later  touch's.  1  Sam.  xii.  6  ff.  is  attributed  by  Kautzuch  to  his 
Saul-Source  in  the  tenth  or  ninth  century  B.C.  H.  P.  Smith,  on  the  other 


102    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

Solomon  dwells  on  them  in  his  speech  and  prayer  at  the 
dedication  of  the  temple.1  They  appear  as  the  motive  to 
obedience  in  the  Decalogue,2  in  the  discourses  and  legislation 
in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  in  the  Levitical  Code 
known  to  critics  as  the  "  Law  of  Holiness," 3  assigned  by 
very  many  to  an  early  date.  Amos,  Hosea,  Jeremiah,  and 
the  other  prophets  appeal  to  them ;  and  they  inspire  many 
of  the  psalms.  These  recollections  of  the  nation  we  can 
fully  trust.  "  No  nation,"  as  Professor  Kautzsch  says, "  ever 
gratuitously  invented  the  report  that  it  had  been  ignomini- 
ously  enslaved  by  another ;  none  ever  forgot  the  days  of 
its  deliverance.  And  so  through  all  the  centuries  there 
survived  in  Israel  the  inextinguishable  recollection  that  it 
was  once  delivered  out  of  Egypt,  the  house  of  bondage,  by 
Jahweh,  the  God  of  its  fathers,  with  a  strong  hand  and 
outstretched  arm ;  that  specially  at  the  passage  of  the  Eed 
Sea  it  experienced  the  mighty  protection  of  its  God. "  * 
This  knowledge  dwells,  not  as  a  vague  reminiscence,  but  as 
a  strong,  definite,  historical  assurance,  in  the  heart  of  the 
nation,  and  it  is  as  inconceivable  that  Israel  should  be 
mistaken  about  it,  as  that  a  grown  man  should  forget  the 
scenes  of  his  boyhood,  or  episodes  of  his  early  life  that 
burned  themselves  into  his  very  soul 

The  confidence  which  the  dramatic  vividness  and  tone 
of  reality  in  the  Mosaic  history  beget  in  us  is  not  dissipated 
by  the  often  far-fetched  criticism  to  which  its  details  are 
subjected  by  writers  like  Colenso,  in  search  of  arithmetical 
and  other  "contradictions"  and  "impossibilities."  This 
criticism  will  come  before  us  for  consideration  after;6  mean- 
while it  would  be  well  if  those  who  urge  these  objections  to  the 

hand,  holds  it  to  be  exilian.  Driver,  following  Budde,  ranks  it  as  pre- 
Denteronomic,  etc.  See  below,  p.  386. 

1  Kautzsch  says  that  "in  his  speech  dedicatory  of  the  temple,  1  Kings 
viii.  12  if.,  we  have  an  authentic  monument  of  the  time  of  Solomon."  He 
apparently  attributes,  however,  vers.  14-43  to  the  "  Deuteronomist " 
(LU.  of  O.T.,  pp.  12,  241).  The  LXX  derives  vers.  12,  13  from  "the 
book  of  the  Song." 

J  Ex.  xx.  2  ;  Deat.  v.  6,  15. 

*  Lev.  xix.  36 ;  xxiL  33  ;  xxiii.  43  ;   xxv.  55,  etc.     On  this  Code  see 
below,  pp.  308  ff. 

*LU.  of  O.T.,  p.  9  ;  cf.  his  "  Rel.  of  Israel,"  Did.  p.  631.  It  is  the 
more  unaccountable  that,  acknowledging  the  essential  facts,  Kautzsch 
should  sit  so  loosely  to  the  history  as  given.  He  rejects,  e.g.,  the  upbringing 
of  Moses  at  the  court  of  Pharaoh. 

•  See  below,  Chap.  X.  pp.  362  ff. 


I.  THE  HISTORY  103 

truth  of  the  history  would  reflect  a  little  on  the  difficulties 
which,  on  the  other  side,  attach  to  their  own  too  hasty 
rejection  of  it.  After  all,  these  things  which  the  Mosaic 
books  record  were  not,  any  more  than  the  events  in  Christ's 
life,  to  which  Paul  appealed  before  Agrippa,  "done  in  a 
corner." l  They  were  public  events,  in  the  fullest  sense  of 
the  term.  Does  it  involve  no  strain  on  belief  to  say  that  an 
event  so  extraordinary  as,  in  any  case,  the  Exodus  of  Israel 
from  Egypt  must  be  admitted  to  have  been,2  happened  in 
the  full  light  of  one  of  the  most  brilliant  civilisations  of  the 
time,  and  yet  that  the  people  who  came  out,  with  a  leader 
like  Moses  at  their  head,  did  not  know,  or  could  not  re- 
member, or  could  ever  possibly  forget,  how  it  happened  ? 
The  Israelites  themselves,  as  we  have  seen,  did  not  believe 
they  did  not  know.  They  had  but  one  story  to  give  of  it 
all  down  their  history — the  same  story  which,  in  circum- 
stantial detail,  is  embodied  in  these  old  books.  If  this  is 
not  how  the  Israelites  got  out  of  Egypt,  will  the  critic,  in 
turn,  furnish  us  with  some  plausible  explanation  of  how 
they  did  get  out  ?  It  is  here  as  in  the  discussion  of  the 
origins  of  Christianity.  It  is  not  enough  to  discredit  the 
Gospels  and  the  Acts;  the  critic  must  be  prepared  to 
show  how,  if  these  are  rejected,  Christianity  did  originate. 
So,  in  the  case  of  the  Exodus,  it  is  not  enough  to  discredit 
the  one  history  we  have  of  that  event;  the  critic  has  to 
show  how,  if  the  whole  history  was  different  from  that 
which  we  possess,  it  came  about  that  no  echo  of  it  was 
preserved  in  Israel,  and  that  this  lifelike,  vivid,  detailed 
narration  came  to  take  its  place.  It  is  admitted,  with  few 
extreme  exceptions,  that  the  people  of  Israel  were  once  in 
Egypt;  that  they  were  in  bitter  bondage;  that  Egypt  at 
the  time  was  ruled  over  by  one  or  other  of  its  powerful 
monarchs ;  that  they  came  out,  not  by  war,  but  peaceably ; 
that  they  were  at  least  tolerably  numerous,  with  women, 
children,  and  cattle;  that  they  found  their  way,  under 
pursuit, — so  Wellhausen  allows, — across  the  Red  Sea.  Is 
it  unfair  to  ask — How  did  they  make  their  way  out  ? 
Theories  of  course  there  are :  ingenuity,  when  freed  from 

1  Acts  xrri.  26. 

•  Of.  WeUhauMn,  Hist,  of  ItratJ,  pp.  432-33  :  "  His  <1«dgn  was  aided 
in  a  wholly  unlooked-for  way,  by  a  marvellous  occurrence,  quite  beyond  his 
control,  and  which  no  sagacity  could  possibly  bare  foi ' 


[04    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

the  necessity  of  respecting  facts,  is  equal  to  anything.  But 
have  they  warrant,  or  even  verisimilitude  ? l  It  is  easy  to 
pen  sentences  about  an  "  escape  "  of  nomadic  tribes  on  the 
border,  in  whom  the  despotic  policy  of  the  Pharaoh  had 
awakened  "the  innate  love  of  freedom";2  or  to  hazard  the 
conjecture  that  there  was  a  slipping  away  of  the  tribes  one 
by  one;3  but  such  speculations,  alongside  of  which  the 
Egyptian  story  of  an  expulsion  of  lepers  is  respectable, 
conflict  with  tradition,  and  break  on  the  hard  facts  of  the 
situation.  For  the  Israelites  were  no  loose  conglomeration 
of  tribes  on  the  border.*  According  to  every  testimony, 
they  occupied  a  wide  territory,  dwelt  in  houses,  were  the 
victims  of  a  systematic  oppression,5  were  engaged  in  forced 
labour,  were  broken-spirited,  under  strict  surveillance  of 
tyrannical  overseers,  etc.  How,  in  these  circumstances,  was 
furtive  escape  possible  ?  Where  is  there  analogy  for  such  a 
horde  of  "  runaway  slaves  "  finding  their  way  out  of  bondage, 
;ind  defying  the  power  of  a  mighty  king  to  bring  them  back  ? 
It  is  a  simple  method  to  reject  history  as  we  have  it,  and 
evolve  hypotheses,  but  the  process  is  not  always  as  satis- 
factory as  it  is  simple.  There  is  need  in  this  case  for  the 
"  strong  hand  "  and  "  stretched-out  arm." 

V.  INTERNAL  CHARACTER  OF  NARRATIVES  A  GUARANTEE 
FOR  HISTORICITY 

Attention  may  now  be  given  to  the  internal  character 
of  the  narratives,  and  to  the  bearings  of  this  on  their 
credibility. 

It  sounds  paradoxical,  yet  it  is  the  case,  that  internal 
evidence  of  truthfulness  is  sometimes  such  as  to  outweigh 
in  value  even  external  evidence,  and  to  support  confidence 
in  a  narrative  where  external  evidence  is  lacking  or  dis- 
puted. Had  we,  for  instance,  no  external  evidence  for  the 
Gospels, — did  they  come  to  us  for  the  first  time  from 

1  See  Note  C  on  Theories  of  the  Exodus. 

2  Thus  Kuenen ;  cf.  Colenso,  Pent.  Ft  vi.  p.  600. 

3  This  theory  is  thought  to  find  support  in  indications  of  the  presence  of 
i  he  tribes  of  Asher  (W.  Max  Miiller ;  cf.  Hommel,  Heb.  Trad.  p.  228)  and 
.ludah  (J  astro  w)  in  Palestine  prior  to  the   Exodus.     The   facts  probably 
really  point  to  an  earlier  date  for  the  Exodus.    Cf.  below,  Chap.  XI.  pp.  422 ff. 

4  Cf.  al>ove,  p.  79. 

*  Note  the  recurrence  of  "  house  of  bondage  "  in  history,  law,  prophecy. 


L  THE  HISTOJIY  105 

unknown  hands, — it  might  still  be  possible  to  argue  that 
the  holy  and  gracious  Personage  portrayed  in  them  was  no 
invention,  but  a  drawing  from  a  divine  Original  In  like 
manner  it  may  be  contended  that  there  are  internal  marks 
which  support  our  confidence  in  the  patriarchal  and  Mosaic 
histories,  apart  from  all  reasoning  as  to  the  age  of  documents, 
or  mode  of  transmission  of  the  traditions.  Something  has 
already  been  said  of  the  teleological  character  of  the  narra- 
tives ;  the  argument  may,  however,  now  be  widened  to  in- 
clude a  number  of  other  features,  hardly  less  remarkable.  We 
draw  our  illustrations  chiefly  from  the  patriarchal  age. 

1.  A  first  question  relates  to  the  general  credibility  of 
the  patriarchal  narratives.  Discussion  of  alleged  historical 
and  chronological  "  contradictions "  can  stand  over ;  but 
what  of  the  credibility  of  the  narratives  as  a  whole  ?  Here 
we  willingly  avail  ourselves  of  the  well-weighed  judgment 
of  a  moderate  critic  like  Dr.  Driver.  "The  patriarchal 
narratives,"  Dr.  Driver  says,  "  are  marked  by  great  sobriety 
of  statement  and  representation.  There  are  no  incredible 
marvels,  no  fantastic  extravagances,  no  surprising  miracles ; 
the  miraculous  hardly  extends  beyond  manifestations  and 
communications  of  the  Deity  to  the  earlier  patriarchs,  and 
in  the  case  of  Joseph  there  are  not  even  these  :  l  the  events 
of  his  life  move  on  by  the  orderly  sequence  of  natural  cause 
and  effect.  There  is  also  a  great  moderation  in  the  claims 
made  on  behalf  of  the  patriarchs."  He  goes  on  to  ask : 
"  Do  the  patriarchal  narratives  contain  intrinsic  historical 
improbabilities?  Or,  in  other  words,  is  there  anything 
intrinsically  improbable  in  the  lives  of  the  several  patriarchs, 
and  the  vicissitudes  through  which  they  severally  pass?" 
And  he  answers :  "  Though  particular  details  in  them  may 
be  improbable  (e.g.,  Gen.  xix.  31  ff.  [?]),*  and  though  the 
representations  may  in  parts  be  coloured  by  the  religious 
and  other  associations  of  the  age  in  which  they  were 
written,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  biographies  of  the  first 
three  patriarchs,  as  told  in  JE,  are,  speaking  generally, 
historically  improbable :  the  movements  and  personal  lives 
of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  are,  taken  on  the  whole, 
credible,"* 

1  Of.  Professor  Bennett  on  Joseph,  there,  p.  97. 

»  See  below,  p.  115. 

'  Qtiusis,  pp.  X!T,  xlri     Exception  i»  taken  by  Dr.  Driver,  howerer,  to 


106    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

The  witness  here  borne  is  true.  Nothing  is  more 
striking  to  an  impartial  mind  than  the  sobriety  of  tone  and 
spavingness  of  miracle  in  the  Book  of  Genesis,  where,  on 
the  legendary  theory,  one  would  expect  a  superabundance 
of  marvels.  To  say,  as  is  done,  for  instance,  in  the 
article,  "Hexateuch,"  in  Hastings'  Dictionary,  that,  "in  J 
the  most  wonderful  phenomena  appear  quite  natural,  the 
writer  feels  himself  in  an  ideal  fairy  land  in  which  no 
wonders  are  surprising,"1  is  to  convey  a  quite  misleading 
impression.  Apart  from  the  theophanies  to  the  patriarchs, 
and  a  few  instances  of  revelations  in  dreams,  there  is  but 
one  recorded  miracle  in  the  whole  long  period  from  Abraham 
to  Moses — the  destruction  of  the  cities  of  the  plain,  and 
even  this,  like  the  Noachian  deluge,  is  connected  with 
physical  causes.  If  the  birth  of  Isaac  is  reckoned  another, 
there  are  two.  This,  as  one  has  said,2  is  a  frugal  provision 
of  signs  and  wonders  for  the  first  foundation  of  an  economy 
by  which  all  families  of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed.  In 
this  respect  the  patriarchal  period  presents  a  marked 
contrast  to  the  period  of  the  Exodus,  which  is  distinguished 
by  the  number,  frequency,  and  stupendous  character  of  its 
miracles.  All  the  remaining  miracles  of  the  Old  Testament, 
in  fact,  are  scarcely  so  numerous  and  striking  as  those 
which  are  crowded  into  this  single  generation.  But  this 
again  is  intelligible  from  the  nature  of  the  case.  It  is 
characteristic  of  the  miracles  of  the  Bible  that  they  are 
never  mere  prodigies,  or  aimless  displays  of  power,  but 
stand  in  intimate  connection  with,  and  strict  subordination 
to,  the  ends  of  revelation.  It  need  stagger  no  one  that  the 
Exodus  took  place,  and  the  foundations  of  the  covenant 
with  Israel  as  a  nation  were  laid,  amidst  surpassing  mani- 
festations of  divine  power  and  grace,  designed  to  produce 
an  indelible  impression  on  the  minds  of  the  beholders,  and 
burn  into  their  hearts  a  grateful  sense  of  their  indebtedness 
to  Jehovah.  And  this  end,  as  we  saw  from  the  history,  was 
effectually  attained. 

2.  As  another  point  in  the  argument  from  internal 
character,  which  powerfully  supports  belief  in  the  historicity 

the  chronology  "as  it  stands."    A  particular  example  from  an  article  by 
Dr.  Driver  in  the  Contemporary  Eeview,  Ivii,  p.  221,  is  considered  in  Note  D. 
on  the  Patriarchal  Chronology. 
1  Diet  of  Bible,  ii.  p.  372. 


L  THE  HISTORY  107 

of  the  patriarchal  narratives,  we  may  note  the  unity  of  the 
picture  of  the  patriarchs  in  the  various  sources.  There  are, 
we  are  assured,  three  main  strands  of  narrative,  at  least,  in 
Genesis, — in  the  case  of  Abraham  there  are  four,  for  Gen. 
xiv.  is  allowed  to  be  a  source  by  itself, — yet  it  is  the  same 
personages,  the  same  environment,  the  same  doings,  the 
same  idiosyncrasies,  essentially,  which  we  have  in  each. 
"  There  is,"  as  Wellhausen  himself  declares,  "  no  primitive 
legend  so  well-knit  as  the  Biblical  one." l  Nor  is  this  simply 
a  matter  of  artificial  arrangement.  "  This  connection,"  he 
says,  "is  common  in  its  main  features  to  all  the  sources 
alike.  The  Priestly  Code  runs,  as  to  its  historical  thread, 
quite  parallel  to  the  Jehovist  history."  *  Again :  "  In  the 
history  of  the  patriarchs  also,  the  outlines  of  the  narrative 
are  the  same  in  Q  [  =  P]  and  in  JE.  We  find  in  both, 
Abraham's  immigration  into  Canaan  with  Sarah  and  Lot, 
his  separation  from  Lot,  the  birth  of  Ishmael  by  Hagar, 
the  appearance  of  God  for  the  promise  of  Isaac,  Isaac's 
birth,  the  death  of  Sarah  and  Abraham,  Ishmael,  Isaac's 
marriage  with  Rebekah,  Jacob  and  Esau,  Jacob's  journey  to 
Mesopotamia,  and  the  foundation  of  his  family  there,  his 
return,  Esau,  Joseph  in  Egypt,  Jacob  in  Egypt,  Jacob's 
blessing  on  Joseph  and  his  sons,  his  death  and  burial."  * 

Closer  observation  discovers  that  the  case  for  unity  is 
even  stronger  than  Wellhausen  represents  it.  The  sources 
specified  not  only  presuppose  the  same  persons  and  the 
same  history,  but  are  so  interwoven  as  to  constitute  n 
compact  single  narrative  of  which  the  several  parts  imply, 
and  depend  on,  each  other.  E.g.,  the  change  of  the  names 
of  Abram  and  Sarai  in  Gen.  xvii.  into  Abraham  and  Sarah 
governs  the  rest  of  the  story,4  and  there  are  continual 
similar  inter  lac  ings.  Wellhausen,  in  fact,  overstates  the 
matter  when  he  says  that  all  the  above  details  are  found 
in  each  of  the  three  sources.  It  is  not  the  case,  e.g.,  that 
the  birth  of  Ishmael,  or  the  death  of  Abraham,  is  mentioned 
in  JE.6  The  separation  of  sources  only  makes  the  problem 

1  /ft*,  of  Israel,  p.  295. 

'  Ibid.     By  "  Jehovut "  WcllhMMB  means  the  combined  J  and  E. 

» Ibid.  |i  318. 

4  This  in  assumed  to  be  the  work  of  a  redactor.     See  below,  p.  220. 

*  Wellhauaen  joints  oat  (Compos,  d.  Hex.  pp.  27,  28)  that  Abraham 
disappears  from  view  in  Ueo.  xxiv.,  and  (quite  arbitrarily)  conjecture*  that 
originally  rer.  67,  "  Isaac  wai  comforted  after  hit  mother's  death,"  may 


IOS     THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

harder;  for  the  unity  which  exists  in  the  book  as  it  is 
disappears  when  its  parts  are  sundered.  Abundant  illustra- 
tion is  given  in  later  chapters,1  and  only  an  example  or  two 
need  be  cited  here.  Thus,  Haran  is  assumed  in  JE  as  the 
place  where  Abraham  received  his  call,2  but,  with  the 
elimination  of  Gen.  xi.  31,  xii.  4b,  5,  assigned  to  P,  the 
reference  to  Haran  in  the  story  of  Abraham's  migrations 
disappears.  So  no  explanation  is  given  in  J  of  "  the  land  " 
which  Abraham,  chap.  xii.  6,  is  said  to  have  passed  through  : 
it  is  P,  in  ver.  5,  who  tells  us  it  was  "  the  land  of  Canaan." 
It  has  been  mentioned  that  the  death  of  Abraham 
is  not  recorded  in  JE.  But,  strangely  enough,  it  is  in 
P  alone,  on  the  current  analysis,  that  an  account  is  found 
of  the  deaths  of  any  of  the  patriarchs.3  In  JE  the  account 
of  Jacob's  funeral  is  actually  given  before  any  allusion  to 
his  decease.4  This  had  preceded  in  P.  Apart,  however, 
from  such  details,  which  might  be  indefinitely  multiplied, 
the  entire  picture  of  the  patriarchs,  alike  in  their  personal 
characters,  their  attitude  to  God,  the  promises  made  to 
them,  and  of  the  persons  connected  with  them  in  the  story, 
as  Sarah,  Lot,  Hagar,  Ishmael,  Esau,  is  identical  throughout, 
and  leaves  essentially  the  same  impression  on  the  mind  in 
all  the  supposed  sources.  Thus,  in  the  P  narrative  of 
Abraham's  dealings  with  the  sons  of  Heth  in  Gen.  xxiii., 
he  appears  as  "  a  mighty  prince  "  (ver.  6) ;  with  this  agrees 
the  picture  of  him  in  chap,  xiv — a  separate  source — as 
the  possessor  of  318  trained  servants,  born  in  his  own 
house. 

3.  This  leads  us  to  remark  that  the  figure  of  Abraham 
might  almost  be  adduced  as  of  itself  a  guarantee  of  the 
historicity  of  the  narrative  in  which  it  is  embodied.  It  is 
difficult,  indeed,  in  our  familiarity  with  the  story,  rightly  to 
estimate  the  nobility  and  grandeur  of  the  personality  that 
here  presents  itself.  To  speak  of  Abraham's  faith  is  to 
touch  the  central  and  most  conspicuous  point  in  his  great- 
ness ;  yet  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  this  faith  is  only 
the  highest  expression  of  a  largeness  of  soul  which  manifests 

hare  read,   "after  his  father's  death."     Addis  actually  adopts  this  con- 
jecture into  his  text  \ 
1  CL  Chaps.  VII.,  X. 

3  Gen.  xxiv.  4,  7,  10  ;  of.  xxvii.  43. 

8  Gen.  xxv.  7-10  ;  xxxv.  28,  29  ;  xlix.  23-33  ;  1.  12,  18. 

4  Gen.  1.  15. 


I.  THE  HISTORY  109 

itself  in  all  the  aspects  of  his  character.  As  instances  of 
this  magnanimity,  with  which  is  joined  a  rare  meekness, 
peaceableness,  and  unselfishness,  together  with  a  never- 
failing  courtesy  and  politeness,  we  need  only  refer  to  his 
dealings  with  Lot  about  the  choice  of  a  settlement,1  his 
relations  with  the  king  of  Sodom  and  with  Melchizedek,* 
and  his  negotiations  with  the  sons  of  Heth  about  a  burying- 
place  for  his  dead.9  But  this  is  only  one  side  of  his 
character.  Wellhausen  was  never  further  astray  than  when 
he  spoke  of  this  patriarch  as  unmanly.  With  bis  gentleness 
and  reasonableness  of  disposition  were  united,  as  the  rescue 
of  Lot  showed,  the  most  conspicuous  courage  and  decision. 
Abraham  was  no  mere  wealthy  sheikh ;  no  mere  stay-at- 
home  watcher  by  the  sheepfolds.  His  was  a  strong  as  well 
as  a  meek  nature.  Sarah,  his  wife,  though  in  many  respects 
a  noble  woman,  worthy  of  such  a  husband,  is  a  far  inferior 
character.  She  moves  throughout  on  a  lower  level.  Stead- 
fast and  loyal  in  her  affection  to  her  lord,  and  moved  by  a 
true  religious  feeling,  she  has  not  Abraham's  strength  of 
faith,  tends  to  be  haughty,  imperious,  and  impatient,  can 
brook  no  rival,  is  stung  by  Hagar's  conduct,  though  she 
was  herself  to  blame  for  putting  the  girl  in  her  false  posi- 
tion, complained  petulantly  to  Abraham,  treated  her  maid 
with  intolerable  harshness,  and  finally  would  be  content 
with  nothing  but  the  expulsion  of  Hagar  and  Ishmael 
from  the  household.  In  comparison  with  her,  the  strong, 
patient,  much-enduring  Abraham  appears  greater  than 
ever. 

Yet  there  is  no  attempt  to  picture  Abraham  as  faultless. 
It  is,  indeed,  difficult  to  understand  how  a  man  whose  faith 
was  uniformly  so  strong  should  so  far  yield  to  fear  as  twice, 
according  to  the  history,  to  stoop  to  falsehood  or  evasion  to 
conceal  his  true  relation  to  his  wife.  It  was  not  a  casual 
lapse,  but  seems  to  have  been  part  of  a  settled  policy,  that 
Abraham  should  pass  off  Sarah  as  his  sister,  when  travelling 
in  dangerous  parts.4  One  can  only  say  of  it,  that,  by 
whatever  excuses  Abraham  may  have  sought  to  justify  his 
behaviour  to  himself,  it  was  a  course  of  conduct  unworthy  of 
him,  indefensible  even  with  such  moral  knowledge  as  be 
possessed,  inexcusable  in  the  eyes  of  God,  and  certain  to 

1  Gen.  ziii.  *  Gen.  sir.  •  Gen.  xxtti. 

4  Gen.  xx.  13.     On  this  incident,  ice  below,  Chap.  VII.  pp.  287  ft 


I  io    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

involve   him,   as  it    actually   did,  in    much    danger    and 
unhappiness. 

The  highest  point  of  view,  however,  in  which  to  consider 
Abraham  in  these  narratives  is  in  his  connection  with  the 
plan  and  purpose  of  revelation.  Alike  on  the  divine  and 
the  human  sides,  we  are  here  in  presence  of  transactions 
unsurpassed  in  the  Old  Testament  in  interest  and  import- 
ance. The  call  of  Abraham — the  covenant  made  with  him 
— is  the  beginning  of  a  new  era  in  the  religious  history  of 
mankind.1  The  faith  with  which  Abraham  responded  to 
that  call,  and,  in  prompt  and  unhesitating  obedience  to  the 
divine  word,  left  home  and  kindred  to  go  to  a  land  which 
yet  he  knew  not ;  his  patient  waiting,  in  spite  of  apparent 
natural  obstacles,  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  of  a  son ; 
his  disinterested  and  lofty  intercession  for  Sodom;  above 
all,  the  great  act  of  surrender  of  Isaac  on  the  altar  at 
Morian,  in  undoubting  confidence,  apparently,  that  God  was 
able  to  give  his  son  back  to  him,  even  if  from  the  dead,2 — 
in  general,  his  habitual  enduring  as  seeing  Him  who  is 
invisible, — all  show  the  magnificent  greatness  of  this  man, 
as,  to  the  end  of  time,  the  Father  of  the  Faithful !  It  is  this 
unique  and  profoundly  significant  character  which  the 
revolutionary  criticism  would  dissipate  into  unsubstantial 
myth  or  legend.  But  the  thing  cannot  be  done.  What 
legend  can  effect  for  the  life  of  Abraham  is  sufficiently 
evidenced  by  the  fables  and  stories  in  Jewish,  Mohammedan, 
and  Persian  sources.  The  history  of  Abraham  in  the  Bible 
stands,  from  internal  evidence  alone,  on  an  entirely  different 
footing  from  these.  In  its  simple,  coherent,  elevated 
character,  its  organic  unity  with  the  rest  of  revelation,  its 
freedom  from  the  puerility  and  extravagance  which  mark 
the  products  of  the  myth-forming  spirit,  it  approves  itself 
as  a  serious  record  of  important  events,  the  knowledge  of 
which  had  been  carefully  preserved — possibly  at  an  early 
age  had  been  written  down 3 — and  the  essential  contents  of 
which  we  may  safely  trust. 

1  Cf.  the  fine  remarks  of  Mozley  on  Abraham,  Ruling  Ideas,  etc  ,  pp. 
21  ff. 

3  Heb.  xi.  17-19  ;  cf.  Mozley,  p.  60. 

*  Cf.  Hommel,  Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition,  pp.  277,  296  ;  and  see  below, 
p.  676. 


L  THE  HISTORY  in 


VL  FIDELITY  OP  NARRATIVES  TO  PATRIARCHAL  CONDITIONS 

One  of  the  most  pronounced  internal  signatures  of  the 
truth  of  the  patriarchal  history  is  undoubtedly  found  in  its 
primitive  character,  and  ite  simplicity  of  ideas  and  worship, 
as  compared  with  later  stages  of  revelation. 

1.  This  appears  on  the  surface  in  the  fact  that  the 
patriarchal  history  moves  in  primitive  conditions,  and  keeps 
true  to  these  throughout.  The  patriarchs  have  a  character 
of  their  own,  and  are  not  modelled  after  the  pattern  of 
heroes,  and  prophets,  and  warriors  of  a  later  time.1  They 
live  their  own  free  life  under  the  open  heaven,  moving  from 
place  to  place,  building  their  altars,  and  calling  on  the  name 
of  Jehovah.  Their  thoughts,  hopes,  interests,  outlook  into 
the  future,  are  all  relatively  simple.  They  are  untroubled 
by  the  problems  and  mental  conflicts  of  later  times, — the 
problems  met  with  in  Job,  for  instance,  or  in  some  of  the 
psalms, — even  their  temptations,  as  in  the  command  to 
sacrifice  Isaac,  are  those  of  a  primitive  age.  It  is  generally 
•greed,  therefore,  that  it  would  not  be  possible  to  assign  a 
late  date  to  the  narratives  in  Genesis  on  the  ground  of  that 
book  alone.1  Many  critics,  no  doubt,  think  otherwise,  and 
fancy  they  can  see  in  the  narratives  in  question  reflections 
of  almost  the  whole  political  history  of  Israel, — the  revolt  of 
Moab,  the  contempt  for  the  wild  Arabs  on  the  south-west 
border,  the  subjection  and  revolt  of  Edom,  the  Syrian  wars,8 
the  prosperity  and  pride  of  the  Northern  Kingdom,  etc,4 
But  it  may  safely  be  affirmed  that  most  of  these  supposed 
mirrorings  of  later  conditions  are  imaginary.  Gunkel 
recently  has  cogently  argued  that  the  narratives  in  Genesis 
— "  legends  "  as  he  calls  them — are  far  more  distinguished 
by  contrast  to  the  later  period  than  by  resemblance.  With 

1  Cf.  Robertson,  Early  Religion,  p.  120. 

'"The  Book  of  Genesis,"  says  Kuenen,  "may  here  be  left  oat  of 
account,  since  the  picture  it  contains  of  the  BK«-  of  the  patrinrcha  gives  us  no 
unequivocal  indications  of  the  period  at  which  it  was  produced  " — Hex. 
p.  42.  "The  question  of  tbedaUaof  the  source*  of  which  the  Book  of  Genesis 
is  com|K»sed,"  aays  Dr.  Driver,  "cannot  bo  properly  answered  from  a  consider- 
ation of  this  book  alone,"  eic.  —  Gcneti*,  p.  XT.  See  below,  Chap.  X.  p.  273. 

*  See  above,  p.  74. 

4  A  large  collection  of  these  may  be  seen  In  the  Introduction  to  Mr. 
Fripp's  book  on  The  Comjtontion  of  (jkiutis,  written  from  the  standpoint  of 
Stade. 


ii2    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

one  exception,  that  of  the  revolt  of  Edom  (regarded  by  him 
as  a  later  addition),1  he  can  find  no  trace  of  reflection  of 
political  events  after  900  B.C.,  and  the  narratives  themselves 
he  takes  to  be  much  older — completed  by  the  time  of  the 
Judges.  He  points  out  that  there  is  no  trace  of  the 
sanctuary  at  Jerusalem,  of  the  kingdom  of  Saul,  of  the 
conflict  of  Saul  with  David,  of  the  kingdom  in  its  united 
form  under  David  and  Solomon,  of  the  division  and  wars  of 
the  separate  kingdoms,  of  the  frightful  Syrian  wars,  etc. 
As  little,  he  argues,  is  there  any  trace  of  the  later  conflicts 
of  the  prophets  against  image-worship,  Asherahs,  maftebas 
(pillars),  high  places ;  the  worship  of  the  patriarchs,  on  the 
contrary,  is  naive  and  free,  and  betrays  no  sense  of  the 
existence  of  these  bitter  contests.2  Gunkel's  own  theory  of 
the  origin  of  the  patriarchal  stories  is,  we  grant,  as  untenable 
as  any  which  he  criticises ; 3  but  he  is  surely  right,  at  any 
rate,  in  his  defence  of  their  relative  antiquity. 

2.  We  observe  next,  in  partial  anticipation  of  subsequent 
discussion,  that  the  religious  ideas,  and  forms  of  worship,  in 
the  patriarchal  history,  are  those  which  suit  an  early 
stage  of  revelation,  and  would  not  be  in  place  later.  The 
patriarchs  worship  one  God — there  is  no  trace  of  any  other 
in  Genesis 4 — but  their  worship  is  of  the  simplest  order : 
prayer  and  sacrifice.  There  are  no  temples  or  fixed 
sanctuaries.  The  only  ceremonial  rite  is  circumcision  ;  the 
one  suggestion  of  Levitical  prescriptions  is  in  the  distinction 
of  clean  and  unclean  animals,  and  this  is  found  in  J,5  not  in 
P.  The  form  of  revelation  is  not,  as  in  the  prophetic  age, 
internal,  but  is  predominatingly  objective — by  dream,  vision, 
theophany,  or  through  the  Mal'ach,  or  "  Angel  of  Jehovah." 
This  last  mode  of  revelation  is  one  deserving  of  special 
attention.  The  doctrine  of  angels  generally  is  undeveloped 
in  these  earlier  books.  The  critics  note  it  as  a  mark  of  P 
that  he  does  not  introduce  angels;  but  even  in  J  and  E 
angels  are  brought  in  very  sparingly.  In  E  they  are  only 

1  On  Edom,  see  below,  p.  209. 

2  Genesis,    Introd.    pp.    Ixi-lxiii.     Of.  Note  E    on  Gunkel's  Theory  of 
Patriarchal  History. 

*  It  is  surprising  that  Guukel  does  not  see  that  his  argument  is  as  cogent 
against  the  late  writing  down  of  the  narratives  in  their  present  form  (ninth 
and  eighth  centuries)  as  against  their  composition  in  or  near  that  age.     The 
"  mirrorings  "  are  a  chief  reason  for  the  later  dating. 

4  See  below,  p.  124. 

•  In  the  story  of  the  flood,  Gen.  vii.  2,  8  ;  viii.  20. 


J.  THE  HISTORY  113 

introduced  twice,  and  then  collectively — in  Jacob's  dream  at 
Bethel,1  and  again  at  Mahanaim,  when  "  the  angels  of  God '' 
— "God's  host"2  —  met  him.  J  mentions  "angels,"  ir. 
forms  of  men,  at  the  destruction  of  Sodom.8  The  apparent 
exception  to  this  reticence,  the  appearances  of  the 
"  Angel  of  Jehovah,"  or  "  Angel  of  God,"  is  really  a  striking 
confirmation  of  our  argument.  For  this  form  of  revelation 
is  one  almost  peculiar  to  the  earlier  periods — patriarchal  and 
Mosaic — and  stands  by  itself.  "  The  Angel  of  Jehovah  "  is 
not  an  ordinary  angel,  like  those  in  the  above  passages,  but 
is  a  peculiar  manifestation  of  Jehovah  in  the  creaturely 
sphere,  for  purposes  of  revelation.  Jehovah's  name  is  in 
him;  he  is  distinct  from  Jehovah,  yet  again  mysteriously 
identified  with  Him ;  in  address  his  name  is  interchanged 
with  that  of  Jehovah  ;  he  is  worshipped  as  Jehovah.4  How 
came  so  remarkable  a  conception  to  be  there  in  this  early 
age,  and  how  came  it  to  be  confined  to  this  age?  It  is 
certainly  no  creation  of  the  prophetic  mind,  and  can  only  be 
explained  as  the  tradition  of  a  well-known  form  of  revela- 
tion of  the  older  time. 

3.  The  idea  of  God  Himself  in  these  narratives  is  ap- 
propriate to  that  early  age,  and  is  readily  distinguishable 
from  the  more  developed  conceptions  of  later  epochs  of 
revelation.  Without  discussing  at  present  the  divine  names 
as  the  basis  of  a  theory  of  documents,5  we  can  at  least  say 
that  the  names  of  God  proper  to  the  patriarchal  history — 
El,  Elohim,  El  Elyon,  El  Shaddai — are  those  which  re- 
present God  under  the  most  general  forms  of  His  being  and 
manifestation,  and  in  this  respect  stand  in  contrast  with  the 
name  Jehovah,  as,  in  its  fullest  significance,  the  covenant- 
name  of  the  God  of  Israel  El,  the  most  generic  of  all,  is 
the  only  name  that  enters  into  the  composition  of  proper 
names  in  Genesis.  It  corresponds  with  the  Babylonian  Ilu, 
but  is  not  ordinarily  used  without  some  predicative  designa- 
tion—El Ely5n  (God  Most  High),  El  Olam  (God  Everkst- 

1  Gen.  xxviii.  12.  '  Gen.  zxzii.  1,  2. 

'Gen.  xix.  1,  15. 

«  Cf.  Gen.  xvi.  7, 11, 13  ;  xxf.  17  ff.  ;  xxiL  12, 14. 15  ;  xxxi.  11-13  ;  xMii. 
15,  10 ;  Ex.  iiL  2,  8  ;  xiii.  21  ;  xiv.  19,  24  ;  xxiiL  20  ff.,  etc.  On  the  riews 
taken  of  these  aj>|>earances  and  their  significance,  see  the  works  on  O.T. 
Theology  of  Oehler,  Schultz,  Dillmann,  Smend,  etc.  (Oebler,  i.  pp.  183  ff., 
has  good  remarks);  art.  "Angel"  bj  Dr.  A.  B.  Daridmn  in  Diet,  </ 
JOb,  etc. 

•  See  below,  pp.  221  ff. 

8 


H4    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

ing),  etc.  Elohim,  a  plural  form  with  a  singular  sense,  is 
peculiar  to  Israel,  and  is  likewise  general  in  signification. 
It  denotes  God  as  the  God  of  creation  and  providence.  El 
Shaddai,  again,  marks  a  distinct  stage  in  patriarchal  revela- 
tion,1 but  seems  still,  like  the  two  former  names,  to  be 
connected  with  the  idea  of  power.2  The  fuller  manifest- 
ation of  the  divine  attributes  implied  in,  or  to  be  historically 
connected  with,  the  name  Jehovah,  lay  yet  in  the  future. 
It  is  true  that  in  the  sections  of  Genesis  ascribed  by 
criticism  to  J  the  name  Jehovah  is  carried  back  into  the 
days  of  the  patriarchs — is  put  even  into  the  mouth  of  Eve.3 
Even  there,  however,  careful  observation  of  the  phenomena 
will  suggest  that  while,  in  the  view  of  the  narrator,  the 
name  Jehovah  was  not  unknown  in  earlier  times,  it  is  used 
by  him  sparingly  and  with  discrimination  in  comparison 
with  other  designations — often  is  used  simply  proleptically.4 
Its  absence  in  proper  names  is  a  testimony  to  this  dis- 
crimination in  its  use. 

The  ideas  of  the  divine  attributes  suggested  by  these 
names,  though  high,  are  yet  in  many  respects  undeveloped, 
relatively  to  later  stages  of  revelation.  What  later  Scripture 
means  by  the  holiness,  righteousness,  wrath  against  sin, 
condescending  grace,  and  covenant-keeping  faithfulness  of 
God,  is,  indeed,  everywhere  implied.  God  is  the  Judge  of 
all  the  earth,  doing  right.  He  accepts  and  saves  the 
righteous,  and  overwhelms  a  sinful  world,  or  sinful  cities, 
like  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  with  His  judgments.  Yet  the 
terms  "  holy,"  "  righteousness,"  "  wrath,"  "  love,"  are  not  yet 
found.  The  word  "  holy  "  first  appears  in  connection  with 
the  revelations  at  the  Exodus.6  Schultz,  in  his  Old  Testa- 
ment Theology,  speaks  of  "the  impression  of  the  terrible 
God  of  the  Semites  "  in  earlier  times,  and  says  "  the  ancient 
Hebrews,  too,  tremble  before  a  mysterious  wrath  of  God." fl 

1  Gen.  xvii.  1  ;  xliii.  14  ;  xlix.  25  ;  cf.  Ex.  vi.  8. 

9  The  etymology  of  this,  as  of  the  other  names,  is  uncertain,  but 
probably  the  root-idea  is  power  (God  Almighty).  The  power  denoted  by 
El  Shaddai  is  power  exercised  within  the  sphere  of  revelation,  e.g.,  in  the 
promise  of  a  son  to  Abraham.  Cf.  Driver  on  "The  Names  of  God"  in 
Genesis,  pp.  402  ff. ;  Ottley,  Aspects  of  O.T.,  pp.  181  ff. ;  also  Oehler,  O.T. 
Theol.  i.  pp.  128  ff. 

1  Gen.  iv.  1  (LXX,  however,  has  "  God"). 

4  See  Note  F  on  the  Name  Jehovah  in  the  Patriarchal  Age,  and  Note  B 
to  Chap.  V. 

9  Ex.  iii.  5  ;  xv.  11.  •  O.T.  Theol.  ii.  p.  175. 


L  THE  HISTORY  115 

He  strangely  forgets  that,  on  his  own  hypothesis,  the 
passages  he  cites  in  proof  are  all  from  the  very  latest  parts 
of  the  Pentateuch — from  P.  The  Book  of  Genesis  has  no 
mention  of  the  "  wrath,"  any  more  than  of  the  "  holiness," 
of  God — a  fact  the  more  striking  that  the  writers  are 
familiar  with  these  ideas  in  Exodus.1  But  the  limits  of  the 
earlier  revelation  are  in  the  former  book  carefully  preserved. 

4.  As  it  is  with  the  idea  of  God,  so,  we  observe  lastly, 
it  is  with  the  ethical  conceptions  of  the  patriarchs.  These 
again,  as  already  seen,  are  relatively  high,  yet  fall  short  in 
many  respects  of  the  ethical  standards  of  the  period  of  the 
prophets.  Abraham  marries  his  half-sister ;  Jacob  marries 
two  sisters,  Leah  and  Rachel ;  the  custom  is  recognised  of 
the  childless  wife  giving  a  handmaid  as  concubine  to  the 
husband  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  children  by  her — a 
custom  now  so  singularly  attested  by  the  provisions  of 
the  Code  of  Hammurabi  as  belonging  to  that  age.1  The 
conduct  of  the  daughters  of  Lot  in  Gen.  xix.  30  ff.,  and  that 
of  Judah  in  chap,  xxxviii.,  shock  our  moral  sense,  but  are 
in  keeping  with  the  degrading  offer  made  by  Lot  of  his 
daughters  to  the  men  of  Sodom.  The  patriarchs  Abraham 
and  Isaac  fail  in  a  due  sense  of  the  sin  involved  in  their 
conduct  about  their  wives.  With  all  the  religious  and 
ethical  elevation  we  must  ascribe  to  the  patriarchs,  there- 
fore, Kuenen  is  not  borne  out  in  his  formerly-quoted  remark 
that  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  are  pictured  as  "not  in- 
ferior to  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.,  in  pure- 
ness  of  religious  insight  and  inward  spiritual  piety."* 

When  we  advance  to  Exodus,  we  are  conscious  of  a  great 
progress.  The  writers  are,  on  the  theory,  the  same,  and 
the  history  is  the  continuation  of  the  preceding.  Tet 
everything  is  on  a  changed  and  grander  scale.  The  ideas 
are  deeper;  the  scene  is  larger  and  more  imposing;  the 
forces  at  work  are  more  titanic;  the  issues  are  more 

»  Cf.  arta.  "Anger"  and  "Love,"  In  Diet,  of  SHU.  A  similar  line  of 
argument  is  developed  in  Dr.  Watson's  little  work.  The  Book  Generi*  a  Tnu 
History,  which  we  nad  not  seen  before  writing  this.  Dr.  Driver  singularly 
•taw  the  point  of  Dr.  Watson's  argument  in  supposing  it  to  prove  only 
that  the  narratives  reached  their  present  form  before  the  age  when  Amos, 
Hosea,  etc.,  "began  to  emphasise  and  develop  beliefs  and  truths  such  at 
those  referred  to  (Gtnetif,  p.  xlviii).  Dr.  Watson's  argument  turn*  on  the 
contrast  of  Omtna  with  Exodus,  which  was  likewise  prior  to  that  age,  yet 
has  theae  idea*. 

1  Cod*  (Johns'  edition),  sects.  144-47.  *  Sea  above,  p.  60. 


Ii6    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM 

tremendous.  The  hour  has  come  for  Jehovah  to  fulfil  His 
promises  to  the  fathers.  The  instrument  is  prepared ;  the 
yoke  of  bondage  is  to  be  broken ;  the  people  are  to  be  led 
forth  to  breathe  the  air  of  liberty  in  the  desert,  and,  as 
redeemed,  to  make  voluntary  dedication  of  themselves  to 
their  Deliverer.  With  this  access  of  religious  enthusiasm, 
and  unparalleled  experience  of  divine  grace,  goes  of  necessity 
an  immense  uplifting  both  in  the  religious  ideas  and  in  the 
standard  of  ethical  obligation.  The  people  have  now  given 
them  "  statutes  and  judgments  "  which  are  to  serve  as  the 
norm  of  moral  conduct.  The  ideal  set  before  them  is 
nothing  less  than  the  holiness  of  Jehovah  Himself.  They 
are  to  be  a  "  holy "  people  to  Him,1  and  are  to  prove  their 
fidelity  by  obedience  to  His  voice.  The  scenes  in  this 
great  drama  are  depicted  with  a  realism  and  fresco-like 
vividness  of  colouring  which  irresistibly  suggest  that  the 
narratives  were  written  under  the  recent  impression  of  the 
events  which  they  record :  when,  at  least,  the  vividness  of 
that  impression  had  not  yet  faded  from  the  memory  and 
heart  of  the  nation.  The  strands  of  the  story  may  be 
multiple, — that  is  yet  to  be  inquired  into, — but  we  cannot 
admit  that  they  are  diverse.  Moses  and  Aaron  are  the 
central  figures  in  the  history,  but,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
patriarchal  narratives,  the  portraits  of  the  two  are  the  same 
in  J,  E,  P,  D  alike.  It  is  one  and  the  same  Moses,  with 
one  and  the  same  Aaron  beside  him,  who  appears  in  all  the 
so-called  "  sources,"  and  mediates,  under  God,  the  freedom 
and  covenant-organisation  of  the  nation. 

iEx.xfa.fc 


CHAPTER  V 

Cbe  ©lfc  ^Testament  as  affcctc5  bg  Criticism— 
15.  IRcliaiou  an&  Institutions :  0o&  ant>  Dis 
Idorsbip 


"The  vp&rov  \j/ev8os,  historically  considered,  of  Graf,  Kuenen,  and  all 
their  followers,  consists  in  this :  that  they  make  use  of  the  variety  of 
material  afforded  them  for  positively  constructing  a  history  of  ancient 
Israel,  only  to  destroy  the  possibility  of  such  a  history.  This  they  appear 
to  do,  not  so  much  because  of  the  discrepancies  which  exist  in  the 
materials,  as  because  of  their  predetermination  to  reject  as  untrustworthy 
all  the  materials  which  partake  largely  of  the  Hebrew  belief  in  the  super- 
natural. " — L  ADD. 

"The  view  of  Israel's  early  history,  offered  by  any  writer,  will  largely 
depend  upon  his  thought  of  Israel's  God." — J.  E.  CARPENTER. 

"We  must  first  firmly  assert  that,  while  there  have  been  different  forms 
of  monotheism  in  many  peoples  and  at  various  times,  nevertheless  Israel 
is  and  remains  the  classical  people  of  monotheism  ;  of  that  monotheism 
which  we  confess,  or,  more  strictly,  which  is  the  precursor  of  ours ;  and 
in  Israel  this  monotheism  is  of  native  origin  :  we  know  the  history  of  its 
origin  very  well." — GUNKEL. 

"God,  in  creating,  theomorphises  man;  man,  therefore,  necessarily 
anthropomorphises  God." — JACOBI. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM 
— H.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS :  GOD  AND  HIS 
WORSHIP. 

IT  will  be  evident  from  the  preceding  discussions  that  the 
real  leverage  of  the  newer  criticism  is  found  in  its  theory 
of  the  religious  development  in  ancient  Israel:  to  this 
subject,  therefore,  special  attention  must  now  be  given.  It 
IB  not  disputed  that  difficult  problems  have  to  be  faced  on 
any  theory  of  the  Israelitish  religion  and  institutions. 
Questions  exceedingly  hard  of  solution  arise  in  regard  to 
laws,  institutions,  and  practice,  and  it  is  the  service  of 
criticism  to  have  set  these  in  the  clearest  light  We  are 
fur  from  persuaded,  however,  that  the  methods  which  have 
come  into  vogue  with  the  radical  school  hold  out  the  promise 
of  a  satisfactory  solution  of  these  difficulties.  On  the  con- 
trary, these  methods  seem  to  us  eaten  through  with  an 
arbitrary  subjectivism  which  vitiates  their  application  at 
every  point  Stade  and  Budde  are  conspicuous  examples 
of  this  fault ;  but  few  of  the  other  best-known  writers  of 
the  school  are  far  behind  in  their  wilful  setting  aside,  or 
mutilation,  of  the  Biblical  accounts,  and  substitution  for  these 
of  an  imaginary  history,  built  up  from  ingenious  conjectures, 
and  brilliant  combinations  on  the  line  of  what  the  critic 
thinks  the  history  should  have  been. 

L  FAULT  OP  THE  CRITICAL  METHOD 

It  may  be  useful,  before  entering  on  the  main  discussion, 
to  offer  one  or  two  examples  of  what  we  regard  as  the 
radical  vice  of  the  newer  critical  method — its  continual 
substitution  of  arbitrary  conjecture  for  the  facts  of  the 
history  as  given. 

119 


120    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

We  take  the  following  from  Budde,  who  prides  himself — 
be  it  said — on  his  respect  for  the  history.1  After  propounding 
the  extraordinary  thesis  that  "  the  tradition  claims  that  it 
was  not  Israel's  own  God  who  performed  these  great  deeds  " 
at  the  Exodus,  "but  a  God  up  to  that  time  completely 
unknown  to  the  Israelites,  whose  name  even  they  then 
learned  for  the  first  time " z  (the  statement  that  the  fore- 
fathers had  known  Yahweh  is  a  later  "  palliating  addition  "),3 
he  proceeds  to  explain  how  this  God  became  transformed 
into  the  Yahweh  of  a  later  period  by  the  absorption  of 
"  other  gods  "  into  Himself.  "  Yahweh  had  not  expelled  or 
annihilated  them  (the  Canaanitish  gods),  but  had  made  them 
subject ;  He  had  divested  them  of  their  personality  by 
absorbing  them  into  His  own  person."  4  Then,  with  charm- 
ing frankness:  "To  be  sure,  neither  the  law,  nor  the  historical 
narratives,  nor  the  prophets,  say  a  word  of  all  this,  yet  it  can 
be  proved,"  etc.5  Nearly  anything,  we  imagine,  could  be 
proved  in  the  same  manner. 

Budde's  respect  for  the  history  does  not  allow  of  his 
agreeing  with  those  who,  "while  relinquishing  everything 
else,  have  tried  to  save  the  Ten  Commandments,  the '  Mosaic ' 
moral  law,  for  these  oldest  times."  For, "  the  Ten  Command- 
ments base  all  their  demands  on  the  nature  of  the  God  of 
Israel.  If,  then,  they  really  did  come  from  this  period  " — 
we  may  ask  the  reader  to  note  what,  in  Budde's  view,  is 
involved  in  the  acceptance  even  of  the  Decalogue — "it 
appears  that  there  existed,  even  in  the  earliest  times,  a 
conception  of  God  so  sublime  that  hardly  anything  could 
have  remained  for  the  prophets  to  do.  This  of  itself  should 
suffice  to  show  the  impossibility  of  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the 
Ten  Commandments."  Then,  with  the  same  engaging 
frankness:  "It  is,  therefore,  in  the  highest  degree  im- 
probable that  Yahweh  demanded  at  Sinai  the  exclusive 
veneration  of  His  own  Godhead.  True,  this  is  the  unvarying 
testimony  of  Old  Testament  tradition.  It  is  to  this  day  the 
generally  accepted  view,  and  is  held  even  by  advanced 
specialists.  But  it  can  hardly  be  maintained,"  etc.6 

1  "Thus  treated,"  he  says,  "the  Biblical  tradition,  even  of  the  oldest 
times,  has  proved  itself  to  me  to  be,  in  its  main  features,  trustworthy — 
I  speak  of  the  history  of  Israel  as  a  nation,  not  of  the  stories  of  primeval  and 
patriarchal  times  in  Genesis." — Eel.  of  Israel,  p.  3. 

*  Ibid.  p.  14.  *  Ibid.  p.  15.  *  Ibid.  p.  41. 

5  Ibid,  (italics  are  ours).  '  Ibid.  p.  59. 


H.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          121 

We  quote  these  passages  because  they  are  typical. 
Delitzsch  has  said :  "  If  history  is  critically  annihilated, 
what  is  left  but  to  fill  the  tabula  rasa  with  myths?"1 
This  we  take,  as  said,  to  be  the  primary  vice  of  the  prevail- 
ing theory — either,  the  arbitrary  setting  aside  of  the  Biblical 
narrative  in  favour  of  some  novel,  no  doubt  highly  ingenious, 
construction  of  the  critic's  own ;  or,  the  persistent  reading 
into  the  history,  in  the  interest  of  some  fancy,  of  a  meaning 
which  it  cannot  be  made  to  bear.  A  main  difficulty,  in  fact, 
in  the  discussion,  is,  that,  in  the  multitude  of  hypotheses, 
and  unbounded  liberty  claimed  by  the  critic  to  accept  or 
reject  as  suits  his  convenience,  it  is  impossible  ever  to  feel 
that  one  has  a  sure  hold  on  anything.  The  critic  should  at 
least,  one  would  think,  abide  by  his  own  assumptions ;  but 
he  is  far  from  doing  so.  How  constantly,  for  instance,  are 
Jephthah's  words  in  Judg.  XL  24,2  relied  on  in  proof  that, 
in  the  time  of  the  Judges,  Jehovah  sustained  the  same 
relation  to  Israel  as  Chemosh  did  to  Moab.  Yet  this  section 
is  declared  by  the  critics  not  to  belong  to  the  older  stratum 
of  the  Book  of  Judges,  but  to  be  a  late  insertion  of  uncertain 
date : 8  certainly,  therefore,  on  the  theory,  no  real  speech  of 
Jephthah's.  Wellhausen  cites  it,4  yet,  as  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson 
points  out,  "  elsewhere  regards  the  whole  passage,  with  the 
allusion  to  Chemosh,  as  a  later  interpolation  founded  on 
Num.  xxi.  29."  6  Similarly,  the  statement  of  David  in  1  Sam. 
xxvi.  19,  that  his  enemies  had  driven  him  out  of  Jehovah's 
inheritance,  saying,  "  Go,  serve  other  gods " — continually 
quoted  in  proof  that  to  David  Jehovah  was  only  a  tribal 
god  6 — is,  with  the  chapter  to  which  it  belongs,  assigned  by 
Kautzsch,  with  others,  to  a  comparatively  late  date : 7  is 
valueless,  therefore,  as  a  testimony  to  David's  own  sentiments. 
Is  it  desired,  again,  to  prove  an  original  connection  between 
Jehovah  and  Moloch  ?  Kuenen,  to  that  end,  accepts  as 
"  historical "  the  statement  in  Amos  v.  26  that  the  Israelites 
carried  about  in  the  desert  "the  tabernacle  of  Moloch,"8 

1  Genesis,  i.  p.  9.  *  See  below,  p.  131. 

•Thus  Kautzsch,  Moore  (Judges),  Thatcher  (Judges,  "Cent.  Bible"), 
etc. 

*Hist.  of  Israel,  p.  235. 

6 Expositor,  3rd  Series,  v.  p.  49.  "This  pet  passage,"  Dr.  Davidson 
says,  "figures  of  course  in  Wellhausen,  as  it  does  everywhere  else  since 
Vatke."  He  refers  to  Wellhausen's  Sleek,  p.  195. 

•  See  below,  p.  182.  7  Lit.  of  0.  T.,  pp.  45,  237. 

l.  of  Israel,  i.  p.  250. 


122    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

though  the  whole  history  of  the  wanderings,  which,  in  its 
JE  parts,  is  allowed  to  be  older  than  Amos,  is  rejected  by 
him.  A  proof  of  the  bull-worship  of  Jehovah  from  ancient 
times  is  found  by  some  in  the  story  of  the  making  of  the 
golden  calf  in  Ex.  xxxii. ;  yet  the  story  is  rejected  as  un- 
historical.1  Others  take  it  as  a  protest  against  bull-worship  : z 
Kuenen,  as  will  be  seen  below,  thinks  it  glances  at  the  fact 
that  the  idolatrous  priests  of  the  Northern  Kingdom  claimed 
descent  from  Aaron.3 

To  take  only  one  other  example,  Professor  W.  R  Smith 
writes  thus  of  the  sacred  pillars  of  the  patriarchs  :  "  In  the 
Biblical  story  they  appear  simply  as  memorial  pillars,  without 
any  definite  ritual  significance."  This,  however,  he  goes  on, 
"  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  narratives  are  conformed  to  the 
standpoint  of  the  law  and  of  the  later  prophets,  who  look  on 
the  ritual  use  of  sacred  pillars  as  idolatrous." 4  The  critic 
forgets,  or  ignores,  that,  on  his  own  showing,  these  patriarchal 
stories  anteceded  the  age  of  written  prophecy,  and  that, 
according  to  him,  in  the  days  of  Amos  and  Hosea,  pillars 
were  still  thought  to  be  legitimate.6  Where  then  is  the 
place  for  the  conforming  of  the  narratives  to  the  ideas  of 
"  later  prophets "  ?  With  the  talismanic  power  which 
such  instances  exemplify  of  getting  rid  of  unwelcome  facts, 
and  making  a  theory  prove  itself  by  employing  it  as  a  means 
to  break  down  opposing  testimony,  it  is  not  difficult  for 
criticism  to  produce  astonishing  results. 

Accepting  for  ourselves  the  historicity  of  the  Biblical 
narratives,  till  at  least  their  title  to  our  confidence  is 
disproved,  we  propose  to  invert  the  procedure  of  the 
schools,  and,  instead  of  sacrificing  the  history  to  a  priori 
considerations,  to  inquire  at  every  point  whether  reason 
is  shown  for  setting  it  aside. 

1  Most  writers  see  some  coimection  with  the  bull- worship,  e.g.,  Stade, 
Gesckichte,  i.  pp.  466-67.  Addis  dates  the  narrative  later  than  the  fall 
of  Samaria  (722  B.C.)  on  the  ground  that  only  then  "the  old  worship  of 
Yahweh  under  the  form  of  a  calf,  long  maintained  by  kings  and  Levitical 
priests  (Judg.  xviii.  30),  received  its  death-blow." — Hex.  i.  pp.  151-52.  On 
this  see  below,  pp.  143  ff. 

2Cf.  Kittel,  Hist,  of  Hebs.  i.  p.  152. 

'Hex.  p.  245.     See  below,  p.  211. 

*Rel.  of  Semites,  p.  186  ;  O.T.  in  J.  C.,  pp.  241,  354. 

*2bid.  pp.  186-87  ;  Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  116. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          123 


II.  EARLY  ISRAELITISH  MONOTHEISM 

We  begin  by  contrasting  the   Biblical  and  the  critical 
views  of  the  early  Israeli tish  conceptions  of  God. 

1.  It  was  formerly  shown  that,  in  the  earliest  tradition 
we  possess  of  Israel's  beliefs,  there  is  no  trace  of  any  con- 
ception of  God  but  one  essentially  monotheistic.  There 
is  but  one  qualification,  which,  in  justice  to  the  facts,  it 
is  necessary  to  make  on  this  statement.  It  is  not  contended 
that,  at  any  period  of  their  history,  the  Israelitish  people 
as  a  whole  rose  to,  or  maintained  themselves  at,  the  full 
height  of  the  monotheistic  conception  :  we  know  they  did 
not.  To  many  the  conception  of  Jehovah  was  no  doubt 
simply  that  of  their  national  god ;  nor  was  it  always,  or 
perhaps  even  generally,  clear,  that  some  kind  of  inferior 
reality  did  not  belong  to  the  gods  worshipped  with  so 
much  pomp  and  ardour  by  the  nations  around  them.1  Even 
in  apostolic  and  sub-apostolic  times,  Christian  believers 
and  Church  fathers  did  not  regard  the  idol-gods  of  the 
Gentiles  as  simple  nonentities:  paganism  was  to  them  a 
system  of  demon -worship.2  Still  harder  would  it  be  for 
Israel  to  rise  to  the  height  of  the  prophetic  conception 
that  the  idols  were  "  nothings  "  (elilim),3  in  a  world  where 
every  people  was  polytheistic  but  themselves.  But  that, 
the  religion  of  Abraham,  and  Moses,  and  the  other  great 
leaders  of  the  nation  was  at  heart  the  worship  of  the  one 
true  God,  recognised  by  them  to  be  the  Creator,  Ruler, 
and  Lord  in  providence  of  the  whole  world,  we  see  not 
the  smallest  reason  to  doubt.  This  was  the  common  view, 
prior  to  the  advent  of  the  Kuenen-Wellhausen  school, 
among  the  critics  themselves,*  and,  as  the  passage  above 
cited  from  Budde  acknowledges,  is  the  view  of  leading 

I  It  would  be  unsafe,  however,  to  infer  this  from  such  expressions  as, 
"Who  is  like  Thee,  0  Jehovah,  among  the  godst"  (Ex.  xv.  11),  for  such 
expressions  are  found  in  prophets  and    psalms  where  the  monotheistic 
consciousness  is  not  doubted.     See  below,  p.  438. 

I 1  Cor.  x.  20,  21  ;  cf.  Justin  Martyr,  1  Apol.  14,  54,  62,  etc. 

1  Cf.  Deut  xxxii.  21  ;  Lev.  xix.  4  ;  Isa.  ii.  8  ;  Ps.  xcvi.  4,  6,  etc.  In 
the  last  passage  we  read  :  Jehovah  "is  to  be  feared  above  all  gods,"  but 
in  ver.  5,  "For  all  the  gods  of  the  peoples  are  nothings." 

*  So  De  Wette,  Lengerke,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Bleek,  Dillmann,  etc.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  views  of  Vatke,  ana  of  writers  like  Daumer,  Ghillany,  etc., 
met  with  little  countenance.  Cf.  Konig's  Havptjrroblcme,  pp.  7  ff. 


124    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

Old  Testament  specialists  stilL1  It  is  the  view  also,  we 
are  persuaded,  which  answers  to  the  natural  reading  of 
the  facts. 

The  Book  of  Genesis,  originating,  it  is  to  be  remembered, 
as  respects  at  least  its  JE  parts,  in  the  "  pre-prophetic  "  age, 
is,  as  before  pointed  out,2  throughout  a  monotheistic  book.3 
God  is  the  Creator  of  the  world  and  of  man :  destroys  the 
whole  human  race  by  a  flood;  is  present  and  active  in 
all  lands — Babylonia,  Mesopotamia,  Egypt;  works  out  a 
gracious  purpose  in  the  lives  of  men.  The  difficulty  in 
Genesis  is  not  its  recognition  of  God  as  supreme, — that 
appears  in  every  part, — but  its  almost  entire  ignoring  of 
what  we  nevertheless  know  to  be  the  fact,  the  existence  of 
polytheism  and  idolatry  in  tribes  and  nations  outside  the 
patriarchal  circle.  The  God  worshipped  by  the  patriarchs 
is  the  only  God  whose  existence,  presence,  and  working 
are  recognised  in  it.  We  read  nothing  of  gods  of  Canaan 
or  Egypt.  Melchizedek  is,  like  Abraham,  a  worshipper  of 
El  Elyon — "  God  Most  High,"  4  and  even  Abimelech  and 
Pharaoh  speak  generally  simply  of  "  God." 5  The  single 
glimpse  we  get  to  the  contrary  is  in  the  "  strange  gods  " 
(teraphim)  which  Jacob's  household  brought  with  them 
from  Mesopotamia,  and  which  Jacob  required  them  to 
put  away.6  In  Exodus  and  the  remaining  Pentateuchal 
books  it  is  different.  There  we  have  a  sharp  contrast 
drawn  between  Jehovah  and  "the  gods  of  Egypt";7  the 
people  are  stringently  forbidden  to  worship  "  other  gods  " ; 8 

1  See  above,  p.  120  ;  and  Chap.  IV.  p.  93.  *  Of.  above,  p.  41. 

*  This  is  very  generally  admitted  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  as  we  have  it. 
H.  P.  Smith,  e.g.,  says  of  the  early  part,  where  anthropomorphism  is  most 
marked:  "What  J  has  preserved  he  was  able  to  bring  into  harmony 
with  the  strictest  monotheism.  For  the  Yahweh  of  our  account,  anthro- 
pomorphic as  He  is,  is  yet  the  Supreme  God." — O.T.  Hist.  p.  16.  Cf. 
Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  304.  Gunkel  acknowledges  this  "  mono- 
theistic trend  "  of  Genesis,  and  carries  it  back  to  an  early  date. — Genesis, 
p.  xlvii ;  see  also  his  Israel  und  Eabylmiien,  p.  29. 

4  Gen.  xiv.  18-22.  It  is  not  easy  to  say  how  far  polytheism  had 
advanced  in  Canaan  in  the  time  of  Abraham.  The  Tel  el-Amarna  tablets 
speak  of  Baalat  of  Gebal  (frequently),  Asherah,  Milku  (Moloch),  Ammon 
(1  Amon),  Samas,  Dagon,  etc.,  but  do  not  give  much  definite  light. 

•Cf.  Gen.  xxi.  22  if.  (in  chap.  xxvi.  27,  28,  "Jehovah"  );  Gen.  xli. 
39,  etc. 

8  Gen.  xxxi.  19,  30  ;  xxxv.  2,  4. 

7  Ex.  xii.  12  (P) ;  xv.  11.     It  will  not  be  claimed  that  P,  in  the  former 
passage,  writes  other  than  monotheistically. 

8  Ex.  xx.  3  ;  xxiii.  32. 


IL  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          125 

they  are  enjoined  to  keep  themselves  apart  from,  and  to 
root  out,  the  idolatry  of  the  Canaanites.1  But  Jehovah 
is  still  regarded  as  exalted  above  all  these  other  gods  in 
nature,  dignity,  and  power,  as  the  God  of  the  whole  earth 
—  its  Creator,  Ruler,  and  Lord.  He  is  the  One  who  says 
of  Himself,  "  All  the  earth  is  Mine."  2  Budde,  we  have  seen, 
acknowledges  that  this  is  the  view  of  God  involved  in  the 
Decalogue.  While,  therefore,  Kuenen  is  right  when  he 
sums  up  Israel's  religion  in  the  formula,  "  Yahweh  Israel's 
God  and  Israel  Yahweh's  people,"  3  this  does  not  in  the 
least  imply  that  Jehovah  was  simply  to  Israel  a  tribal  or 
national  god.  He  was  the  God  of  their  fathers  —  the  God 
of  heaven  and  earth  4  —  who  of  His  condescending  love  had 
chosen  them  to  be  a  people  for  Himself,  with  a  view  to 
the  ultimate  larger  blessing  of  mankind.  The  keynote 
in  these  early  books  is  precisely  the  same  as  in  Amos  — 
the  alleged  introducer  of  the  "  ethical  monotheism  "  : 
"  You  only  have  I  known  of  all  the  families  of  the 
earth."* 

What  is  here  said  of  early  monotheism  is  not  contra- 
dicted by  the  anthropomorphisms  attributed  peculiarly  to 
the  J  writer  in  the  Genesis  narratives.  The  anthro- 
pomorphisms are  naive  and  popular  enough  ;  8  yet,  beneath 
them,  the  conception  of  Jehovah  as  the  Creator  and  Ruler 
of  the  world  is  never  lost  sight  of  ;  7  and  the  sublimity  of 
the  representations  of  God  in  other  parts  of  the  J  narrative 
—in  the.  revelation  of  God's  name,  e.g.,  in  Ex.  xxxiii.  18,  19, 
xxxiv.  5-8  8  —  shows  clearly  that  no  such  paltry  ideas  of 
God  as  the  critics  ascribe  to  this  writer  were  really  his. 
The  anthropomorphisms  belong  either  to  the  older  tradition 
the  writer  is  dealing  with,  or  to  a  vivid  and  personalising 
way  of  setting  forth  God's  presence  and  interest  in  human 

1  Ex.  xxiii.  24  ;  cf.  Deut.  xii.  2  ff.  'Ex.  xix.  5. 

»  Nat.  and  Univ.  Religions  (Hibbert  Lectures),  p.  105. 

4  Cf.  Gen  xxiv.  8,  etc.  •  Amos  iii.  2. 

•  "Jehovah  forms  men  and  beasts,  brcathts  the  breath  of  life  into 
nan's  nostrils,  builds  a  rib  into  a  woman,  plants  a  garden,  takes  a  man  and 
puts  him  into  it,  briiujs  the  beasts  to  the  man,  walks  in  the  cool  of  the  day, 
xpeaks  (Gen.  iii.  22)  as  though  He  were  jealous  of  the  man  "  (Knobel,  m 


Dillmanu). 

7  Cf.  the  narrative  of  the  flood,  the  representations  of  God  in  Gen.  xviii.  25, 
xxiv.  8.  See  H.  P.  Smith,  Quoted  above. 

•  On  the  sole  ground  of  this  loftier  character  these  passage*  art  treated 
by  certain  critics  as  later  insertions.—  Cf.  Oxf.  Hex.  U.  p.  134. 


126    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

things,1  such  as  is  found  in  prophets  and  psalmists  to  the 
latest  time. 

2.  Entirely  different  from  this  is  the  early  Israelitish 
conception  of  God  imagined  by  the  new  critical  school.  The 
guiding  idea  here  is  no  longer  "  revelation,"  but  "  evolution." 
Man's  oldest  ideas  of  God  being  supposed  to  be  his  poorest, 
an  original  monotheism  in  this  people  is  decisively  rejected. 
"At  first,"  says  Kuenen,  "the  religion  of  Israel  was  poly- 
theism." *  "  Monotheism,"  says  Wellhausen,  "  was  unknown 
to  ancient  Israel."3  "The  knowledge  that  there  is  a 
supreme  spiritual  Being,  alone  of  His  kind,  Creator  and 
Preserver  of  all  things,  is  perfectly  lacking  to  ancient 
Israel,"  is  the  first  sentence  in  Stade's  chapter  on  pre- 
prophetic  religion  in  Israel.4  If  we  ask  what  conception 
is  to  take  the  place  of  that  which  is  discarded,  we  have  first 
the  general  answer  that  "the  relation  in  which  Yaliweh 
stands  to  Israel  is  the  same  as,  for  instance,  that  of  Chemosh 
to  the  Moabites."6  Beyond  this,  we  are  offered  a  wide 
choice  of  theories.  Kautzsch,  e.g.,  can  find  nothing  in  the 
religion  of  pre-Mosaic  Israel  but  a  species  of  "  polydemonism." 
"  It  is  only  in  a  very  restricted  sense,"  he  thinks,  "  that  we 
can  speak  of  such  a  notion  [as  God]  at  all."  6  A  connection 
is  sought  by  Kuenen  between  Jehovah  and  Moloch,  the 
fire-god,  who  was  worshipped  with  human  sacrifices.7  A 
favourite  theory  at  present,  revived  by  Budde,  is  that 
Yahweh  was  originally  the  storm-god  of  Sinai,  worshipped 
by  the  Kenites,  from  whom  Moses  borrowed  the  name  and 
cult.8  With  these  theories  are  blended  by  Stade  and  others 

*Cf.  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson,  art.  "God"  in  Diet,  of  Bible,  ii.  p.  198: 
"The  language  only  testifies  to  the  warmth  and  intensity  of  feeling  of  the 
writers";  Theol.  of  O.T.,  pp.  108-9.  Gunkel  remarks:  "In  the  Old 
Testament  there  are  occasionally  strong  anthropomorphisms  ;  but  they  are 
not  so  gross  as  is  usual  in  Babylonia ;  Israel  never  said  that  Jehovah  eats 
and  drinks.  Such  anthropomorphisms  are,  in  the  Old  Testament,  archaisms," 
etc. — Is.  und  Bab.  p.  32. 

3  Eel.  of  Israel,  i  p.  223.   He  deduces  this  from  the  later  practice  of  idolatry. 

»  Isr.  und  Jud.  GeschichU  (1897),  p.  30.  4  Geschickte,  i.  p.  428. 

8  Kuenen,  Rel.  of  Israel,  p.  224  ;  so  Wellhausen,  Stade,  Budde,  W.  E. 
Smith,  etc. 

6  Art.  "  Rel.  of  Israel "  in  Diet,  of  Bible  (Extra),  p.  623.     Kautzsch  severs 
himself  from   naturalistic  theories  when  he  comes  to  Moses.     His  idea  of 
God,  he  thinks,  can  only  have  come  from  special  revelation  (p.  625).     But  it 
was  not  yet  a  monotheism :  only  a  "monolatry." 

7  Rel.   of  Israel,  i.    pp.   226-28,  240,  etc.     On  the  similar  theory  of 
Daumer,  etc.,  cf.  Konig,  Hauptprobleme,  pp.  7  ff. 

8  The  Kenite  theory,  on  which  see  below,  pp.  129  ff.,  is  advocated  by  Budde, 


H.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS         127 

a  number  of  other  elements  drawn  from  fetishism,  animism, 
ancestor-worship,  totemism,  etc.  —  of  which  more  again. 
What  are  some  of  the  grounds  of  these  allegations,  and  of 
the  rejection  of  the  Biblical  view  ? 

(1)  First,  and  perhaps  deepest,  of  the  reasons  for  this 
rejection  is  the  a  priori  one,  that  such  a  conception  of  God 
as  the  Old  Testament  attributes  to  the  patriarchs  and  to 
Moses  was  impossible  for  them  at  that  stage  of  the  history. 
It  is  too  elevated  and  spiritual  for  their  minds  to  have 
entertained.  The  idea  of  the  unity  of  God  has  for  its 
correlates  the  ideas  of  the  world  and  of  humanity,  and 
neither  of  these  ideas,  it  is  asserted,  was  possessed  by  ancient 
Israel.1  The  idea  of  the  world  did  not  arise  till  the  time 
of  Amos,  when  it  was  introduced  through  the  Assyrian 
invasions.  These  "introduced,"  says  Wellhausen,  "a  new 
factor,  the  conception  of  the  world — the  world,  of  course, 
in  the  historical  sense  of  that  expression.  In  presence  of 
that  conception,  the  petty  nationalities  lost  their  centre  of 
gravity,  brute  force  dispelled  their  illusions,  they  flung  their 
gods  to  the  moles  and  to  the  bats."2  Thus  arose  the 
universalism  of  the  prophets :  thus  was  brought  about 
the  transformation  of  Yahweh-worship  from  monolatry  to 
monotheism. 

This  seems  to  us  most  singular  reasoning;  is,  indeed, 
throughout,  both  as  to  the  idea  of  the  world,  and  the 
impossibility  of  framing  a  spiritual  conception  of  God, 
again  a  huge  petitio  principii.  Here  is  a  people  whose  own 
traditions,  with  the  best  warrant,  went  back  to  Babylonia 
and  Mesopotamia ;  who  had  lived  for  centuries  in  Egypt  in 
the  most  brilliant  period  of  its  civilisation ;  a  people  of  the 
age  of  the  Tel  el-Amarna  tablets;  who  entered  Canaan 
when  it  stood  in  connection  with,  and  was  the  highway  of, 

Tiele,  Stade,  Cheyne,  etc.  It  was  favoured  by  Colenso,  and  .-ome  older 
writers.  It  is  one  of  the  conceits  of  Budde  that  originally  the  Israelite!* 
traced  their  descent  to  Cain  I  Cf.  Delitzsch,  Genesis,  i.  p.  192. 

1  Thus  Stade,  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  etc.  On  the  creation  of  the  world, 
Wellhauseu  declares  that  "  in  a  youthful  people  such  a  theological  abstraction 
is  unheard  of,  and  so  with  the  Hebrews  we  find  both  the  word  and  the  notion 
only  coming  into  use  after  the  Babylonian  exile." — Hist,  of  Jitrael,  p.  30f>. 
"The  religious  notion  of  humanity  underlying  Gen.  ix.  6  is  not  ancient  with 
the  Hebrews  any  more  than  with  other  nations." — Ibid.  p.  312. 

*  Ibid.  p.  473.  \Vellhausen  fails  to  show  what  other  nations  flung  their 
gods  to  the  moles  and  the  bats  as  the  result  of  the  Assyrian  conquests,  or 
even  that  Israel  did  so  as  the  result  of  these  conquests,  or  till  after  the  exile. 


128     THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

all  the  great  empires  of  the  world ;  who  knew  something  of 
the  vast  power  of  the  Hittites  in  the  north ;  yet  we  are 
asked  to  believe  that  it  had  no  conception  of  the  world,  or 
of  anything  larger  than  a  petty  state,  till  the  days  of  Amos ! 
The  JE  parts  of  the  "  table  of  nations "  alone,  in  Gen.  x., 
cry  out  against  such  a  notion.  As  to  the  spirituality  of 
God,  how  can  it  well  be  maintained,  in  view  of  the  exalted 
conceptions  of  God  now  proved  to  have  existed  in  both 
the  Babylonian  and  the  Egyptian  religions  in  periods  long 
anterior  to  Abraham  and  Moses,1  that  such  conceptions 
were  beyond  the  grasp  of  the  greater  spirits  in  these  times  ? 
The  Code  of  Hammurabi,  in  the  simplicity  and  elevation  of 
its  idea  of  "  God,"  as  the  One  in  whose  name,  or  before 
whom,  oaths  were  to  be  taken,2  is  a  singular  example  of 
what  thoughtful  minds  were  capable  of  in  the  age  of 
Abraham.  In  the  Mosaic  religion  itself  we  have  the 
powerful  witness  of  the  Decalogue.  We  agree  with  Budde 
in  his  testimony  to  the  spirituality  of  the  conception  of 
God  involved  in  the  Ten  Words,3  but  we  do  not,  on  that 
account,  in  face  of  the  strongest  historical  improbabilities, 
deny  these  precepts  to  Moses.  The  First  Commandment, 
indeed,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  Me,"  might 
be  interpreted  in  the  sense  of  monolatry,4  not  of  monotheism ; 
but,  in  its  actual  setting,  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  precept 
is,  that  Jehovah  alone  is  to  be  worshipped,  because  He  alone 
is  the  living  and  true  God.5 

1  On  the  pronounced  monotheistic  elements  in  the  oldest  Egyptian  texts, 
cf.  Renouf,  Hibbert  Lectures,  1879,  pp.  89  ff.  See  also  Note  A,  below. 

8  The  formula  in  the  Code  is  simply,  "  shall  swear  in  the  name  of  God," 
"shall  recount  before  God,"  or  the  like.  The  language  is  nearly  identical 
with  that  of  the  Book  of  Genesis.  The  difference  is,  that  with  this  high 
conception  of  divinity,  the  Babylonians  worshipped  many  special  gods,  while 
the  Hebrews  were  forbidden  to  worship  any  but  Jehovah.  See  Note  A  on 
Early  Ideas  of  God. 

*  Wellhausen  also  speaks  of  "  the  actual  monotheism  which  is  undoubtedly 
presupposed  in  the  universal  precepts  of  the  Decalogue." — Hist,  of  Israel, 
p.  440.  We  have  thus  the  alternative  of  denying  the  Decalogue  to  Moses, 
or  of  admitting  that  a  monotheistic  conception  of  God  lay  at  the  foundation 
of  the  religion  of  Israel.  See  below,  pp.  152  if.  Even  Kuenen  admits  that,  in 
its  fundamental  form,  the  Decalogue  is  Mosaic. 

4  Thus  Kuenen,  Kautzsch,  etc.  The  theory  on  which  this  rests,  viz., 
that  "monolatry,"  or  the  worship  of  one  sole  (tribal)  god,  was  the  rule 
among  surrounding  peoples  is  open  to  the  gravest  doubts.  Cf.  Dr.  A.  B. 
Davidson,  art.  "God,"  in  Diet,  of  Bible. 

8  r".  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson  on  this  precept  in  Expositor,  3rd  Series,  T. 
p.  44. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          129 

(2)  The  modern  theory  may  be  usefully  tested  by 
reference  to  its  most  prevalent  recent  form — the  alleged 
Kenite  origin  of  the  Yahweh  cult.  The  theory,  in  essence, 
is,  as  above  stated,  that  Yahweh,  whose  name  and  worship 
Moses  introduced  into  Israel,  was  originally  the  storm-god 
of  the  Kenites,  believed  by  them  to  have  his  local  seat  on 
Mount  Sinai.  A  connection  is  thought  to  be  established  by 
the  facts  that  Moses  was  living  among  the  Kenites,  with 
Jethro,  when  Yahweh  was  revealed  to  him ;  that  the  abode 
of  Yahweh  is  placed  at  Sinai ;  and  that  His  presence  there 
is  associated  with  thunder,  lightning,  and  storm.  The 
classical  passage  in  proof  is  Deborah's  Song,1  in  which, 
according  to  Wellhausen,  Yahweh  is  "summoned  to  come 
from  Sinai  to  succour  His  oppressed  people,  and  to  place 
Himself  at  the  head  of  His  warriors."2  Budde,  it  was  seen, 
draws  the  conclusion  that  Yahweh  was  a  God  absolutely 
unknown  to  the  Hebrews  before  the  Exodus,  and  explains 
His  intimate  association  with  Canaan  by  the  notion  that  He 
"  absorbed  "  the  Canaanitish  deities  into  Himself ! 

The  far-fetched  and  arbitrary  character  of  this  theory, 
which  Budde  allows  to  be  contradictory  of  the  uniform 
tradition  of  the  Old  Testament,  can  be  judged  of  by  the 
most  ordinary  reader.  Not  only  does  it  lack  real  evidence, 
but  it  is  directly  in  the  teeth  of  the  fact  that  the  Jehovah 
who  appeared  to  Moses  is  expressly  identified  in  the  oldest 
sources  with  the  God  of  the  fathers,  and  His  interposition 
is  represented  as  in  fulfilment  of  His  covenant  promises  to 
them.8  This  is  independent  of  any  theory  we  may  form  as 
to  whether  the  sacred  name  was  known  earlier  or  not.  In 
point  of  fact  many  of  the  critics  now  hold  that  it  was 
known,  if  only  in  limited  circles.4  On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  not  the  least  proof,  as  Kittel  points  out,  that 
Yahweh  was  the  name  of  a  Kenite  deity.6  When  Moses, 
later,  invited  Hobab  the  Kenite,  his  brother-in-law,  to  come 
with  the  Israelites,  it  was  that  they  might  do  him  good, 
"  for  Jehovah  hath  spoken  good  concerning  Israel,"  not  that 
he,  as  an  earlier  worshipper  of  Yahweh,  might  do  them 
good.8  It  is  but  a  precarious  hold  which  the  theory  finds 

1  Jndg.  r.  •  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  344. 

•  Ex.  ii.  28-25,  iii.  18-16,  eta 

4  See  Note  B  on  the  Antiquity  of  the  Name  Jehovah.  Many  now  trace  it 
as  far  back  as  Babylonia.  See  below,  p.  409. 

•  Hut.  of  Hebs.  i.  p.  250.  •  Num.  x.  28. 

9 


130    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

iii  the  Song  of  Deborah,  especially  when  it  is  remembered 
that  by  the  time  of  the  Judges  Jehovah's  presence  is  beyond 
all  question  presupposed  as  in  the  midst  of  His  people  in 
Canaan.1  How  then  should  He  require  to  be  "  summoned  " 
from  Sinai?2  The  bold,  figurative  language  in  the  opening 
of  the  Song  is  most  easily  understood  as  a  reminiscence  of 
the  manifestations  of  Jehovah's  presence  and  power  in  the 
desert  and  at  Mount  Sinai,  viewed  as  a  pledge  of  present 
help.8 

Stade  has  himself  no  little  difficulty  in  maintaining  his 
theory  of  a  local  and  limited  deity,  whose  seat  was  at  Sinai. 
Yahweh,  he  allows,  was  "  everywhere "  present  to  His 
worshippers  in  Canaan,  and  could  be  worshipped  "  every- 
where."4 His  presence  and  help  are  not  confined  to  His 
own  land :  He  accompanies  His  worshippers  into  foreign 
lands,  and  there  guards  and  defends  them.  Thus  He 
promises  to  Jacob  at  Bethel  to  be  everywhere  with  him : 
He  is  with  Joseph  in  Egypt,  goes  with  Jacob  down  to 
Egypt,  works  miracles  for  Elijah  at  Zarephath,  etc.  He 
knows  Sarah's  thoughts ;  it  is  declared  of  Him  that  nothing 
is  too  hard  for  Him ;  He  can  help  by  many  or  by  few  ;  He 
destroys  wicked  cities ;  visits  lands  like  Egypt  with  famine ; 
and  otherwise  displays  His  universal  might.6  Stade  speaks 
of  these  things  as  indications  of  a  tendency  to  "break 
through "  the  old  notion  of  God ; 6  they  are  in  reality  a 
disproof  of  his  theory  of  that  notion.  The  Song  of  Deborah 
itself,  rightly  regarded,  is  evidence  of  a  far  higher  conception 
of  Jehovah  in  the  time  of  the  Judges  than  the  modern 
theory  will  allow.  How  sublime  the  picturing  of  the 
majesty  and  omnipotence  of  God  in  the  opening  theophany ; 
how  irreconcilable  with  the  idea  of  a  local  deity  the  resist- 

1  The  whole  book  is  evidence  ;  but  cf.  Judg.  i.  19,  22;  or  chap.  xi.  11: 
"  Jephthah  tittered  all  his  words  before  Jehovah  in  Mizpeh  "  ;  or  the  presence 
of  the  ark  of  Jehovah  at  Bethel  and  Shiloh. 

1  "The  truth  is,  "says  Professor  Robertson,  "the  Song  says  not  a  word 
about  Jehovah  being  'summoned'  from  Sinai  on  the  occasion  of  the  battle 
referred  to." — Early  Rcl.  p.  193. 

1  Cf.  for  parallels,  Deut.  xxxiii.  2  ;  Hab.  iii.  3  ff. ;  Pss.  xviii.  7  ff.,  Ixviii. 
7  ff.,  etc.  Kuenen  himself  says  :  "  Of  course,  we  do  not  deny  that  the  pious 
among  the  Israelites,  in  using  tliese  expressions,  were  aware  that  they  spoke 
in  metaphors." — Rel.  of  Israel,  i.  p.  241. 

4  Gcschichte,  i.  p.  446. 

8  Ibid.  i.  pp.  430-32.  Cf.  the  references,  Gen.  xviii.  14  ;  xxviii.  15  ff. ; 
1  Sam.  xiv.  6 ;  2  Kings  v.  15  ff.,  etc. 

•  Ibid.  p.  430. 


IL  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          131 

less  presence  of  Jehovah  in  Seir,  at  Sinai,  in  Canaan ; l 
how  manifest  the  supremacy  of  this  God  in  nature  and 
providence,  when  even  "  the  stars  in  their  courses "  fight 
against  His  enemies ; 8  how  distinct  the  assertion  of  Jehovah's 
righteousness ; 3  how  lofty  and  spiritual  the  closing  strain — 
suggestive  of  the  Second  Commandment  and  of  Deuteronomy 
— "  Let  them  that  love  Him  be  as  the  sun  when  he  goeth 
forth  in  his  might ! " 4  The  theory  as  a  whole  thus  fails  of 
evidence,  and  we  are  not  surprised  that  critics  like  Konig, 
Kittel,  Kautzsch,  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson,5  and  others  reject  it. 
The  fact  that  Horeb  is  already  spoken  of  in  Ex.  iii.  1  as 
"  the  mountain  of  God  "  is  a  very  fragile  buttress :  the  ex- 
pression is  probably  used  proleptically. 

(3)  We  come  back,  then,  in  support  of  the  theory  that 
Jehovah  was  a  "tribal"  (or  merely  national)  god  to  the 
two  passages  which,  from  their  perpetual  recurrence,  may, 
without  offence,  be  called  the  stock  proofs  of  that  hypothesis, 
viz.,  the  words  of  Jephthah  in  Judg.  XL  24,  and  those  of 
David  in  1  Sam.  xxvi.  19.  But,  impartially  examined, 
what  do  these  passages  amount  to  ?  Jephthah  says  to  the 
king  of  the  Ammonites :  "  Wilt  thou  not  possess  that  which 
Chemosh  thy  god  giveth  thee  to  possess  ?  So  whomsoever 
Jehovah  our  God  hath  dispossessed  from  before  us,  them 
will  we  possess."  Even  accepting  the  interpretation  put 
upon  the  words,  one  may  reasonably  demur  to  the  erecting 
of  the  utterance  of  this  rude  Gileadite  chieftain,  in  a  time 
of  religious  disorganisation,  into  a  standard  for  the  true 
idea  of  God  in  the  Mosaic  religion.  That  must  be  judged 
of  on  its  own  ampler  evidence,  apart  from  a  passage  like 
this.  But  even  on  the  lips  of  Jephthah,  rude  soldier  though 
he  is,  it  is  by  no  means  clear  that  the  words  are  intended 
as  more  than  a  form  of  speech  in  accommodation  to  the 

1  Judg.  v.  4,  5. 

1  Ver.  20.  "  In  the  Song,"  says  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson,  "  we  observe  Him 
regarded  as  ruling  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  commanding  the  stars  in  their 
courses,  and  the  rivers  as  they  How." — O.T.  Prophecy,  p.  88. 

*  Ver.  11.  In  Budde's  view,  the  Yabweh  of  Moses  had  not  even  moral 
character  (Rel.  of  Israel,  n.  30). 

4  Ver.  81.  Dr.  Davidson  says  here  :  "  Had  we  a  few  more  po»-ms  by 
prophetic  minds  such  as  this,  and  not  the  external  histories  of  rude  soldiers, 
such  as  unfortunately  we  possess  alone  [But  see  below,  pp.  143,  884],  we 
should,  I  believe,  be  able  to  form  a  higher  idea  even  of  the  religious  condition 
of  the  people  under  the  Judges." — Ibisl.  pp.  37-38. 

1  Kautzsch  speaks  of  it  with  respect,  but  does  not  accept  it — "ReL  of 
Israel,"  Diet.  p.  62  ;  cf.  Davidson,  Thtol.  of  O.T. t  pp.  50-62. 


132    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

Ammonite  point  of  view.  The  section  seems  based,  aa 
before  said,  on  Num.  xxi.  22  ff.,  where,  it  might  be  shown, 
a  sufficiently  high  idea  of  God  is  implied.  Jehovah,  in  any 
case,  is  obviously  far  more  to  Israel  than  Chemosh  is  to 
Ammon  ;  is  even,  in  ver.  27,  invoked  as  "  the  Judge "  to 
judge  between  them.1  The  second  passage,  in  which  David 
says,  "  They  have  driven  me  out  this  day  that  I  should  not 
cleave  unto  (or,  have  no  share  in)  the  inheritance  of 
Jehovah,  saying,  Go,  serve  other  gods,"  has,  to  our  mind, 
even  less  probative  force.  Wellhausen  entirely  misrepre- 
sents its  import  when  he  speaks  of  David  as  "  compelled  to 
serve  other  gods,"  2  and  Professor  W.  E.  Smith  not  less  when 
he  says  that  David  takes  it  for  granted  that  a  man  who  is 
excluded  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel  "  must  go  and 
serve  other  gods."  8  One  desiderates  here  some  more  exact 
thinking.  Does  anyone — even  Wellhausen — really  suppose 
that  when  David  crossed  into  Philistia  he  ceased  to  worship 
Jehovah,  and  served  Dagon  instead?  or  that  Naomi 
worshipped  Chemosh  in  Moab  ?  or  that  Elijah  served  Baal 
at  Zarephath  ?  What,  on  this  theory,  would  be  the  meaning 
of  Naaman's  apology  for  "  bowing  down  "  in  the  house  of 
Rimmon  ? 4  We  have  learned  from  Stade  himself,  what  all 
the  history  teaches,  that  Jehovah  accompanied  His  servants 
in  their  wanderings :  how  could  David  imagine  it  would  be 
otherwise  with  him  ?  Taking  the  passage  most  literally, 
David  is  not  speaking  for  himself,  but  declaring  what  others 
say  ;  and  he  uses  this  bold  mode  of  speech  to  emphasise  his 
sense  of  the  deprivation  implied  in  being  banished  from 
Jehovah's  immediate  presence,  and  driven  into  a  land  where 
other  gods  are  worshipped.  The  fact  that  precisely  the 
same  expression  occurs  twice  in  an  undoubtedly  mono- 
theistic book  like  Deuteronomy  should  warn  us  against 
attaching  too  much  weight  to  its  presence  here.6 

1  We  may  quote  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson  again  :  "  The  truth  is  that  such 
references  to  Chemosh  and  other  heathen  gods  prove  nothing,  because  they 
would  prove  that  even  Jeremiah  regarded  Chemosh  as  a  real  divinity  (Jer. 
xlviii.  7)." — Expositor,  3rd  Series,  v.  p.  49.  We  may  compare  our  own  way 
of  speaking  of  heathen  goda.  Even  in  the  case  of  a  monotheistic  religion 
like  Mohammedanism,  we  make  a  distinction  between  the  Christian's  God 
and  Allah.  Both  are  designations  of  the  Supreme  Being,  yet  the  concep- 
tions of  God  are  so  different  that  we  hold  them  apart  in  thought,  and  give 
them  different  names. 

1  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  22.  »  Projyhets,  p.  54.  4  2  Kings  v.  18. 

•  Deut.  xxviii.  36,    64.     Wellhausen   cites  as   another  proof :  "  When 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          133 

We  conclude  that  no  good  ground  has  been  shown  for 
the  view  that  "  ethical  monotheism "  was  first  introduced 
by  the  prophets,  beginning  with  Amos.1  We  have  found 
monotheism  already  embedded  in  the  narratives  in  Genesis, 
which,  in  their  J  and  E  parts,  are,  on  the  critic's  own 
showing,  "  pre-prophetic."  So  far  from  monotheism  being 
the  creation  of  the  prophets, — with,  perhaps,  Elijah  as 
precursor, — these  prophets,  without  exception,  found  upon, 
and  presuppose,  an  older  knowledge  of  the  true  God.  They 
bring  in  no  new  doctrine,  still  less  dream  of  the  evolution 
from  a  Moloch  or  a  Kenite  storm-god, — as  much  the  product 
of  men's  fancies  as  Chemosh  or  Dagon, — of  the  living,  holy, 
all-powerful,  all-gracious  Being  to  whose  service  the  people 
were  bound  by  every  tie  of  gratitude,  but  from  whom  they 
had  basely  apostatised.  They  could  not  have  understood 
such  evolution  from  an  unreality  into  a  reality.  They  were 
in  continuity  with  the  past,  not  innovators  upon  it. 
Dillmann  speaks  for  a  large  class  of  scholars  wlim  he  says, 
in  decisively  rejecting  this  theory  :  "  No  prophet  is  conscious 
of  proclaiming  for  the  first  time  this  higher  divine 
Principle :  each  reproaches  the  people  for  an  ap-  istacy  from 
a  much  better  past  and  better  knowledge :  God  has  a  con- 
troversy with  His  people."* 

III.  EARLY  ISRAELITISH  WORSHIP 

Budde  stands  nearly  alone  in  denying  an  ethical  element 
in  the  original  Mosaic  conception  of  God ;  but  it  is  hardly 
possible  to  put  lower  than  most  writers  of  this  school  do 
the  ideas  entertained  by  the  people  in  the  pre-prophetic  age 
of  the  proper  mode  of  representing  and  worshipping  the 
deity  to  whom  they  had  attached  themselves.  Fetishism, 
animism,  totemism,  image-worship,  ancestor-worship,  tree- 
and  stone-worship,  human  sacrifices,  etc.,  all  play  their  part 

Cain  is  driven  out  of  the  land  (Canaan),  he  is  driven  from  the  presence  of 
J<-hovah"  (Gen.  iv.  14,  Ifi).  Similarly  Stale:  "Cain,  driven  out  of 
Palestine,  and  pleading  for  the  alleviation  of  his  punishment,  is  made  to 
•ay,"  etc.  (i.  pp.  446-47).  Cain,  on  this  view,  is  supposed  to  have  had  his 
abode  in  Palestine.  Wonderful  is  the  power  of  criticism  to  make  the  text 
say  what  it  pleases — even  to  the  turning  of  it  into  nonsense  ! 

1  Cf.  Duhm,  quoted  above,  p.  68. 

»  AlUeat.  Theol.  p.  5«.  Cf.  Schultz  agi-inst  Stade  in  O.T.  Theot.  i.  pp. 
123-24.  Baethgen  maintains  tlmt  the  religion  of  Israel  never  was  poly- 
theistic :  that  its  strange  gods  were  imported. — £eitrdye,  p.  289. 


134    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

here.  Most  writers  are  content  to  explain  a  religion  by  the 
help  of  one  or  two  such  principles — by  fetishism,  e.g.,  or 
ancestor-worship,  or  totemisra.  It  is  reserved  for  Stade, 
in  his  picture  of  pre-prophetic  religion,  to  blend  all  these 
forms  of  superstition  in  one  grand  melange.  We  shall  con- 
sider this  subject  under  the  general  head  of  worship. 

The  simple  elements  of  patriarchal  worship,  in  the 
Biblical  view,  are  prayer  and  sacrifice.  The  patriarchs 
build  their  altars,  and  call  on  the  name  of  God.  After  the 
Exodus,  worship  is  regulated  by  the  Mosaic  constitution. 
The  fundamental  laws  of  the  covenant  forbade  the  worship 
of  God  by  images,  required  the  extirpation  of  idolatry, 
denounced  witchcraft,  and  condemned  the  practices  of  the 
Canaanites  generally.1  In  the  hands  of  the  critics  this 
picture  of  Israel's  history  undergoes  a  complete  transforma- 
tion. It  was  seen  before  that  the  Biblical  history,  on  the 
face  of  it,  does  not  lend  support  to  the  view  that  tree-  and 
stone- worship,  ancestor- worship,  totem -worship,  teraphim- 
worship,  human  sacrifices  and  the  like,  were  prominent 
features  of  the  religion  of  the  patriarchs,  or  of  the  people 
who  came  out  of  Egypt  with  Moses.2  How  then  is  the 
theory  made  out  ?  In  the  first  place,  as  before,  by  rejecting 
the  history  we  have,  and  substituting  for  it  a  construction 
evolved  from  a  general  theory  of  the  origin  of  religion ;  in 
the  next  place,  by  reading  back  the  disobediences  and  cor- 
ruptions of  the  later  history  into  the  original  form  of  the 
religion,  and  fastening  on  stray  passages  and  incidents  an 
interpretation  contrary  to  the  general  impression  of  the 
narrative.3  The  method  can  best  be  illustrated  by  observing 
it  at  work. 

1.  The  Book  of  Genesis  gives  us  a  clear  and  intelligible 
account  of  how  places  like  Bethel,  Hebron,  Beersheba, 
Shechem,  came  to  be  regarded  with  peculiar  veneration  by 
the  Israelites.  They  were  places  hallowed  by  the  residence, 
and  worship  of  their  fathers,  and  by  the  revelations  of  God. 
These  stories  form  part  of  the  patriarchal  history,  and  we 
have  sought  to  show  that  there  is  no  reason  for  discrediting 
them.  The  newer  criticism,  however,  cannot  accept  so 

1  Ex.  xx.  4,  5,  23  ;  xxii.  18,  21;  xxiiL  24,  32,  33. 

a  See  above,  pp.  39,  40. 

*  Kautzsch  says  he  "  must  emphasise  very  strongly  that  in  almost  every 
instance  we  have  here  to  deal  with  hypotheses,  and  not  with  facts." — "  Rel. 
of  Israel,"  Did.  p.  613. 


IL  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          135 

simple  an  explanation.  It  rejects  the  history,  and  assumes 
that  these  places  were  really  old  Canaanitish  sanctuaries, 
which  the  Israelites  adopted  on  their  entrance  into  Canaan, 
and  afterwards  glorified  by  weaving  around  them  this  web 
of  patriarchal  legend.1  If  we  ask  for  proof,  none  is  forth- 
coming. We  are  thrown  back  on  assertion,  and  on  the 
assumption  of  the  mythical  character  and  non-historicity  of 
the  patriarchal  narratives  generally. 

2.  Stade  gives  the  matter  a  further  development.  There 
were  graves  at  some  of  these  places  (Hebron,  Machpelah, 
Shechem).  What  is  clearer  than  that  the  real  origin  of  the 
sacred  ness  of  these  sanctuaries  was  ancestor  -  worship  ?~ 
"  Before  the  altars  at  Hebron  and  Shechem  were  altars  of 
Yahweh,  sacrifices  were  offered  on  them  to  the  ancestral 
spirits  of  Abraham  and  Joseph,  and  we  have  here  a  proof  " 
—the  reader  will  note  the  stringency  of  Stade's  ideas  of 
proof  — "  that  we  are  right  in  our  conclusion  that  the 
worship  of  ancestors  was  a  usage  in  ancient  Israel." 2  The 
tribal  system  is  thought  to  be  connected  with  ancestor- 
ivorship,8  and  additional  proofs  are  found  in  mourning 
sustoms.4  Other  writers  amplify  the  suggestion.  "The 
teraphim,"  Budde  thinks,  "  belong  to  the  extensive  domain 
}f  ancestor-worship,  which,  iu  many  lands  and  continents, 
even  in  the  New  World,  has  formed  the  oldest  verifiable 
foundation  of  religion."6  The  yearly  sacrifice  of  David's 
family  in  Bethlehem  may  be  presumed  to  have  been 
originally  offered  "  to  a  deified  eponymous  hero." fl  The 
rule  is  a  simple  one — wherever  you  find  mention  of  burial- 
places,  be  sure  you  are  on  the  track  of  worship  of  ancestors.7 
Addis  finds  Jacob  in  Gen.  xxxv.  14  "  pouring  out  a  libation 

1  Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  18,  80,  825,  etc. ;  Budde,  Rd.  of 
Israel,  p.  107,  etc.  E.g.,  Jacob's  vow  at  Bethel  is  supposed  to  be  meant 
as  a  sanction  of  the  payment  of  tithes  to  the  priests  of  the  calf-worship  at 
that  place. 

*  Geschichte,  i.  pp.  451-52.  •  Ibid.  p.  452. 

4  Mourning  customs  are  supposed  to  have  their  rationale  in  the  attempt, 
ns  Kautzsch  says,  "to  render  oneself  -unrecognisable  by  the  spirit  of  the 
dead,  and  thus  to  escape  its  malign  influence." — "Eel.  of  Israel,"  Did, 
]>]>.  614-15.  Kaut/sch  criticises  the  theory,  and  concludes  that  if  ancestor- 
worship  ever  prevailed  in  the  pre- Mosaic  period,  no  consciousness  of  it  sur- 
vived to  historical  times. 

8  Rcl.  of  Israel,  p.  64.  Max  Miillcr  subjects  the  theory  of  ancestor* 
worship  to  a  historical  examination  in  his  Anthropological  JieligioH(Lect.V.), 
and  rejects  it  aa  based  on  totally  mistaken  data. 

•  Ibid.  p.  65.  »  Ibid. 


136    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

to  the  soul  of  the  dead." l    And  these  things,  in  all  serious- 
ness, are  regarded  as  "  scientific  "  treatment  of  the  history. 

3.  Was  animism,  or  belief  in  a  spiritual  presence  in 
natural  objects,  a  feature  of  the  religion  of  ancient  Israel  ? 
These  writers  have  no  doubt  of  it.  Primitive  peoples  are 
accustomed  to  connect  the  presence  of  the  deity  with  wells 
and  trees.2  Now  there  are  "  wells "  mentioned  in  Genesis, 
at  Beersheba  and  elsewhere.3  It  is  true  that  there  is  no 
hint  in  the  patriarchal  narratives  that  the  wells  were  valued 
for  anything  but  the  supply  of  water  they  yielded.  But 
this  is  no  obstacle  to  the  belief  that  originally  the  wells 
were  thought  of  as  dwelt  in  by  spirits,  and  that  this  was 
the  real  ground  of  the  reverence  paid  to  them.*  So  trees 
were  wont  to  be  regarded  as  manifestations  of  a  divine  life. 
And  the  patriarchs  were  fond  of  the  shade  of  spreading 
trees,  built  altars  near  them,5  sometimes  even  planted  them. 
Abraham  dwelt  by  the  "  oaks  "  or  "  terebinths  "  of  Mamre ; 6 
he  planted  a  tamarisk  at  Beersheba;  Deborah,  Rebekah's 
nurse,  was  buried  under  "  the  oak  "  at  Bethel,  which  thence- 
forth was  called  " Allon-bacuth " — "the  oak  of  weeping."7 
"  The  famous  holy  tree  near  Shechem,"  says  Professor  W.  R. 
Smith,  "called  'the  tree  of  soothsayers/  in  Judg.  ix.  37, 
and  '  the  tree  of  the  revealer '  in  Gen.  xii.  6,  must  have  been 
the  seat  of  a  Canaanite  oracle." 8  Possibly ;  though  there  is 
in  the  statement  the  full  measure  of  assumption  usual  in 
such  matters.9  But  there  is  nothing  to  connect  the 
patriarchs  with  these  superstitions,  or  to  indicate  that  they 
thought  of  a  god  as  dwelling  in  these  trees.  The  Ganaanite 

1  Hex.  ii.  p.  226.     Addis  takes  this  verse  from  its  place,  and  connects  it 
with  the  death  of  Deborah. 

2  Cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  Rel.  of  Semite*,  pp.  151  ff. 

»Gen.  xvi.  7;  xxi.  25,  30  ff. ;  xxiv.  16;  xxvi.  15,  19  ff.,  etc. 

4  Stade,  Geschichte,  i.  p.  456. 

5  Gen.  xiii.  18. 

8  Gen.  xiii.  18  ;  xiv.  13  ;  xviii.  1.     The  LXX  has  the  singular,  "onk." 

7  Gen.  xxxv.  8.     Stade  would  connect  the  very  names  of  the  trees  — 
Elah,  Elon,  Allon — with  the  divine  name  El  (i.  p.  455).     "This  attempt," 
says  Professor  A.  B.  Davidson,  "may  be  safely  neglected." — Diet,  of  Bible, 
ii.  p.  199. 

8  Rel.  of  Semites,  p.  179. 

9  "The  famous  holy  oak  "  has  already  a  touch  of  such  assumption.     It 
is  assumed  that  the  "  Moreh  "  in  Gen.  xii.  6  is  not,  like  Mamre,  a  proper 
name  (cf.  Dillmann,  in  loc.),  and  that  the  identity  of  this  tree  is  certain  with 
the   "oak  of  Meonenim"  in  Judg.   ix.   37.     Similarly,    "the  palm  tree" 
under  which  Deborah  sat  and  judged  (Judg.  iv.  4)  is  identified  with  "  the 
oak"  winch  marked  the  grave  of  Rebekah's  nurse  (Gen.  xxxv.  8). 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          137 

Asherahs,  or  tree  symbols  of  Astarte,  on  the  other  hand, — 
another  of  the  proofs, — were  no  doubt  idolatrous ;  but  they 
were  from  the  first,  and  all  down  the  history,  absolutely 
condemned.1 

4  The  proofs  offered  of  fetishism  and  of  stone-worship  in 
ancient  Israel  are  equally  numerous — and  equally  incon- 
clusive. Only  allusion  need  be  made  here  to  the  ark  of 
the  covenant,  which  will  form  a  subject  of  discussion  by 
itself  after.2  The  history  speaks  of  an  ark,  the  visible 
symbol  of  the  presence  of  Jehovah  among  His  people,3  in 
which  were  deposited  the  two  tables  of  the  law.*  Jehovah 
dwelt,  not  in,  but  above  the  ark,  between  (or  upon)  the 
cherubim."  *  This,  however,  in  the  view  of  the  critics,  is  a 
mistake.  Analogies  are  drawn  from  other  religions  to  prove 
that  "  the  ark  of  Yahweh "  was  really  a  fetish-chest ;  and 
the  tradition  that  it  contained  tables  of  stone  is  to  Stade 
the  "  most  convincing  "  evidence  that  it  had  in  it  two  stones  in 
which  Yahweh  was  believed  to  dwell*  The  stones  were  pro- 
bably "  meteorites  " — appropriate  to  the  lightning-god.7  "  If 
the  divinity  of  Sinai  resided  in  a  rock,"  says  Professor  H.  P. 
Smith  sagely, — "  which  from  Arabian  analogies  seems  very 
probable, — it  would  be  natural  for  the  people  to  secure  His 
presence  by  providing  such  a  chest  in  which  to  transport 
the  fetish."8  One  feels  sometimes  that  it  would  require 

1  Ex.  xxxiv.  13 ;  of.  Deut  xvi.  21. 

•  Cf.  Chap.  VI.  pp.  161  ff. 

»  Num.  x.  33  tf.;  Josh.  iii.  6. 

4  Hence  the  name  "ark  of  the  covenant."  Cf.  Dent.  x.  1-6,  1  Kings 
Tiii.  9,  with  Ex.  xxiv.  12  ff.,  xxv.  21.  See  below,  p.  162. 

•  1  Sam.  iv.  4  ;  2  Sam.  vi.  2.    Cf.  A.  B.  Davidson,  Theol.  0/0.7*.,  p.  112. 
Kuenen  says  of  these  passages:    "We  must  hold  that  the  author  wrote 
'  the  ark  of  Yahweh,'  and  '  the  ark  of  God,'  nothing  more." — Rtl.  of  Israel,  i. 
p.   259.     Apart,  however,  from  the  omission  of  the  words  "  of  the  cove- 
nant" in  the  LXX  (Vat.  Cod.)  of  1  Sam.  iv.  3-5,  which  is  not  decisive, 
the  "  must  "  ia  in  bis  own  theory.     See  below,  p.  162. 

6  Ge»chichU,  L  pp.  448-49,  457.  "This  conception,"  Stade  says,  "is 
what  from  the  standpoint  of  the  history  of  religion  must  be  called 
fetishistic  "  (p.  448). 

1  Ibid.  p.  458  ;  cf.  Kuenen,  i.  p.  233.  Kautzsch  adopts  the  "  meteorite  " 
theory. — "  Rel.  of  Israel,"  Diet.  p.  629.  Bennett  says:  "According  to 
early  tradition,  two  sacred  stones  were  preserved  in  the  ark."  —  Genesis, 
p.  282.  Tradition,  however,  says  nothing  of  "  two  sacred  stones,"  it  speaks 
only  and  definitely  of  the  two  tables  of  the  law. 

•  0.  T.  History,  p.  71.    Professor  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy,  in  art.  "Ark"  in  Diet, 
of  Bible  (L  p.  150),  dissociates  himself  from   this  view,  "now  generally 
adopted,"    he   says,    "by  Continental  writers."      On  the  literature,  aee 
Kautzsch,  as  above. 


138    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

the  irony  of  an  Elijah  to  deal  fittingly  with  such 
hypotheses,  but  we  are  content  to  leave  them  to  the  reader's 
own  reflections. 

A  more  direct  proof  of  stone-worship,  however,  is 
thought  to  be  found  in  the  setting  up  of  sacred  "  pillars  " 
or  ma^ebas  by  the  patriarchs  and  others — as  by  Jacob  at 
Bethel,1  by  Jacob  and  Laban  in  Mount  Gilead,2  by  Joshua 
at  Shechem,8  by  Samuel  at  Ebenezer,4  etc.  It  is  true  that, 
as  Professor  W.  R  Smith  admits,  these  pillars  or  stones  are 
never  represented  in  the  narratives  as  anything  but 
memorial  pillars;*  but  it  is  insisted  that  the  real  idea 
underlying  them  is  that  God  was  actually  present  in  the 
stone,  or  at  least  then  took  up  'His  abode  in  it.6  It  is 
pointed  out  that,  in  the  case  of  Jacob,  not  "the  place," 
but  the  "  stone "  itself,  is  called  "  Bethel,"  in  Gen.  xxviii. 
22,7  and  a  connection  is  sought  with  the  Greek  word 
/Sa/rix/a,  a  name  for  sacred  stones.8  But  there  is  not 
a  vestige  of  evidence  that  there  was  ever  a  class  of  sacred 
stones  in  Israel  called  "  Bethels,"  9  and  it  is  surely  obvious 
from  the  context  that  the  stone  is  called  "  Bethel,"  merely 
as  marking  the  site  of  the  place.  This  ingenious  hypothesis, 
in  short,  is  simply  a  reading  into  the  narrative  of  ideas 
which  do  not  necessarily  belong  to  it.  "  It  cannot  be 
inferred,"  Dillmann  says  justly,  "  from  Gen.  xxviii.  18,  xxxv. 
14,  15,  xlix.  24,  that  the  patriarchs  worshipped  holy  stones  : 
the  stone  of  Jacob  appears  only  as  a  symbol  of  a  place, 
and  monument  of  the  experience  of  God's  nearness;  also 
in  later  times  we  read  nothing  of  stone-worship  among 
the  people." 10  Neither,  we  may  add,  is  there  the  slightest 
evidence  that  the  prophets,  in  their  later  polemic  against 
idolatrous  maf^ebas,  intended  the  least  disrespect  to  such 
memorial  pillars  as  were  set  up  by  Jacob  or  Joshua.  In 

1  Gen.  xxviii.  18,  22  ;  xxxv.  14. 

2  Gen.  xxxi.  45.     Also  in  vers.  46-49,  a  heap  or  cairn. 
8  Josh.  xxiv.  26,  27. 

4  1  Sam.  vii.  12.  8  Cf.  above,  p.  122. 

8  Professor  W.  R.  Smith  distinguishes  such  dwelling  in  stones  from  fetish- 
ism proper  (Bel.  of  Semites,  p.  189). 

7  find.  p.  187. 

8  Cf.  art.  "  Bethel  "  in  Diet,  of  Bible,  L  p.  218. 

9  As  Schultz,  e.g.,  would  seem  to  suggest,  O.T.  Theol.  i.  p.  207. 

10  Alttest.  Theol.  p.  90.  So  Konig  in  art.  "  Symbol "  in  Diet,  of  Bible 
(Extra),  p.  170:  "The  ma^eboth,  again,  were  not  set  up  on  their  own 
account.  They  were  not  meant  to  be  dwelling-places  of  the  deity,  but 
were  symbols,  expressive  of  gratitude  for  a  divine  revelation,"  etc. 


n.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          139 

Isa.  xix.  19  it  is  even  predicted  that  "  in  that  day  there 
shall  be  an  altar  of  Jehovah  in  the  midst  of  the  land  of 
Egypt,  and  a  pillar  (maffeba)  at  the  border  thereof  to 
Jehovah."  It  is  a  forced  explanation  of  such  a  passage 
to  say  that,  in  Isaiah's  time,  pillars  were  not  yet  regarded 
as  unlawful.1  Memorial  pillars  never  were  so  regarded  : 
"pillars"  on  the  other  hand,  connected  with  idolatrous 
worship  were  already  condemned  in  the  first  legislation,2 
—  far  older,  on  any  showing,  than  Isaiah, 

5.  Another  form  of  superstition  with  which  the  religion 
of  Israel  is  brought  into  relation  is  totemism,  or  belief  in 
the  descent  of  a  tribe  from  a  sacred  animal.    Professor  W.  R 
Smith   found   in  this   the   key   to    the   clan   system   and 
sacrificial  customs  of  the  Semites  —  the  Hebrews  included.3 
Support  is  sought  for  the   theory  in    Biblical  names  —  in 
the  name   Caleb,   e.g.,   which   means    a   dog,4  —  and   Stade 
urges  such   facts  as   the  "horns"  of   the  altar,  and  the 
bull-worship  of  the  Northern  Kingdom.6     The  theory  has 
not  met  with  general  acceptance,  and  hardly  needs  here 
fuller  discussion.6 

6.  To   the  long  list  of  heathenish  practices  asserted 
to  belong  to  the  religion  of  ancient  Israel  may  be  added  — 
human    sacrifice.      Human    sacrifice    was    a    feature    of 
Moloch-  worship  :   the  Israelites  were  acquainted  with  it  ; 
in  times  of  religious  declension  even  caused  their  children 
to  pass  through  the  fire  to  Moloch.7     If,  then,  as  Kuenen 
thinks,  Yahweh   was   originally  connected   with    Moloch, 


1  According  to  Vatke,  Kuenen,  Duhm,  etc.,  the  abolition  of 
was  included  in  the  reforms  of  Hezekiali.    Of.  Kouig,  Hauplpr  obi  erne,  p.  68. 

s  Ex.  xxiii.  24  (images  =  maf^ebaa)  ;  of.  Isa.  xvii.  7,  8;  Mic.  v.  13. 
Hoses,  in  chap.  iii.  4,  seems  to  group  together  lawful  and  unlawful  objects. 

*  Kel.  of  Semites,  pp.  117  ff.,  130,  261  ft,  424  ff.  ;  Kinship  and  Marriage, 
chap.  viii.  ;  "Animal  Worship  and  Animal  Tribes,"  Jour,  of  Philology, 
1880. 

4  Of.  Kinship  and  Marriage,  pp.  218  ff.  :  "The  nomadic  populations  of 
Southern  Palestine,  which  ultimately  became  incorporated  with  Judah,  also 
present  animal  names,  of  which  the  most  important  is  that  of  the  Calebbites, 
or  dog-  tribe  "(p.  219). 

•Grschichte,  p.  465.  Stade  mentions  (p.  466)  that  W.  R.  Smith 
supposes  the  serpent  to  be  the  totem  of  the  house  of  David. 

•See  Note  C  on  Professor  W.  R.  Smith's  Theory  of  Sacrifice.  Kantzsch 
criticises  the  totem-theory  in  "Rel.  of  Israel,"  Diet.  p.  613.  If  the  theory 
were  as  ingeniously  applied  to  British  personal  (animal)  names,  symbols 
(<•..'/.,  John  Bull,  British  Lion),  tavern  signs  (a  large  class),  etc.,  it  would 
bring  out  startling  results. 

7  Of.  2  Kings  xvi.  3  ;  xxi.  6  ;  xxiii.  10  ;  Jer.  xxxii.  35,  etc. 


140    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

human  sacrifice  was  to  be  expected  in  His  service.1  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  this  abhorrent  idea  of  the  connection  of 
Jehovah  with  Moloch  is  rejected,  the  chief  basis  of  the 
theory  is  destroyed,  and  other  proofs  become  of  secondary 
account.  No  fair  reader  of  the  history  of  Israel  can  say 
that  human  sacrifice  was  at  any  time  a  legitimate  or 
recognised  part  of  the  worship  of  the  nation.  Proofs 
drawn  from  Abraham's  temptation  (the  moral  of  which 
is  that  such  sacrifices  were  not  desired  by  Jehovah),2  from 
the  destruction  of  the  first-born,3  Samuel's  hewing  of  Agag 
in  pieces  before  Jehovah,4  the  hanging  of  Saul's  seven  sons,5 
etc.,  are  quite  illusory,  for  none  of  the  last-named  cases 
answers  properly  to  the  idea  of  sacrifice.  If  Micah  asks : 
"  Shall  I  give  my  first-born  for  my  transgression,  the  fruit 
of  my  body  for  the  sin  of  my  soul?"6 — asks  it  only  to 
reject  the  supposition — this  no  more  proves  that  human 
sacrifice  was  a  usual  or  recognised  part  of  Jehovah's 
religion,  than  Paul's  words,  "If  I  give  my  body  to  be 
burned,"7  prove  that  surrender  to  death  by  fire  was  a 
common  form  of  devotion  in  the  apostolic  Church.  There 
remains  the  case  of  Jephthah's  sacrifice  of  his  daughter  in 
fulfilment  of  his  rash  vow.8  The  circumstances  are  unusual, 
and  there  is  still  doubt  as  to  the  manner  in  which  Jephthah 
fulfilled  his  vow.9  But,  admitting  that  the  maiden  was 
actually  slain  as  a  sacrifice,  and  not  simply  devoted,  we 
may  be  excused,  as  before,  for  not  accepting  the  action  of 
this  very  partially  enlightened  Gileadite,  in  a  rude  age, 
as  a  rule  for  judging  of  the  true  character  of  Israel's 
religion.  How  would  it  fare  with  Christianity,  if  it  were 
judged  by  individual  instances  of  misguided  zeal,  in  con- 
trariety with  its  own  first  principles,  occurring,  say,  in  the 
Middle  Ages  ?  We  may  safely  apply  to  all  human  sacrifices 

1  Of.  Rd.  of  Israel,  i.  pp.  228,  237.     Kuenen  carries  over  all  the  things 
condemned  by  the  prophets,  including  female  prostitution,  into  the  worship 
of  Yahweh  (cf.  p.  72). 

2  Gen.  xxii. 

8  Ex.  xiii.  2,  11-12,  etc.     The  redemption  of  the  first-born  is  thought 
to  have  its  origin  in  this  practice.     Cf.  Kuenen,  i.  p.  290. 
4  1  Sam.  xv.  33. 

•  2  Sam.  xxi.  1-14.     These  are  Kueuen's  own  instances  (i.  p.  287). 

•  Mic.  vi.  7,  8.  7  1  Cor.  xiii.  3. 

8  Judg.  xL  30,  31,  34-40. 

9  Cf.   Sanday,   Inspiration,   p.    138 ;    and    see    the  full  discussion  in 
Kohler's  Bib.  Getchichte,  ii.  pp.  100-3. 


IL  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          141 

what  Jeremiah  says  of  the  sacrifices  to  Moloch:  "Which 
I  commanded  them  not,  neither  came  it  into  My  mind, 
that  they  should  do  this  abomination,  to  cause  Judah 
to  sin."1 


IV.  IMAGE- WORSHIP  IN  ISRAEL 

A  more  important  question  than  any  of  the  above  is — 
Was  image-worship  an  original  or  permissible  part  of 
Israel's  religion  ?  To  most  the  Second  Commandment  would 
seem  decisive  on  that  point ;  but  it  is  not  so  to  the  critics. 
The  Decalogue  is  denied  to  Moses,  and  a  principal  reason 
for  rejecting  the  precept  prohibiting  images  is  precisely 
that  images  are  held  to  have  been,  in  point  of  fact, 
worshippsd.2  That  there  was  deplorable  defection,  and 
lapsing  into  idolatry,  in  the  time  of  the  Judges,  and  under 
the  kings,  no  one,  of  course,  denies ;  it  is  the  assertion  of 
the  Bible  itself,  and  the  constant  subject  of  the  denunciation 
of  the  prophets.  It  is  a  different  matter  when  it  is  maintained 
that  the  worship  of  Jehovah  was  originally,  and  all  down 
the  history,  by  images.  The  assertions  of  the  critics  here 
are  of  the  most  positive  kind.  Wellhausen  says  roundly : 
"The  prohibition  of  images  was  during  the  older  period 
quite  unknown."*  Professor  H.  P.  Smith  tells  us  that  even 
the  great  prophets  "no  doubt  conceived  God  as  existing 
in  human  form."4  It  was  not,  however,  in  human  form, 
but  under  the  image  of  a  bull,  that  Jehovah  is  supposed 
to  have  been  worshipped  from  ancient  times  in  Israel.5 
The  support  for  this  is  chiefly  drawn  from  the  calf-worship 
set  up  by  Jeroboam  in  Northern  Israel,  and  confirmatory 
evidences  are  sought  in  the  ephod  of  Gideon,*  the  images 

1  Jer.  xzzii.  35.  Another  prophetic  passage  adduced  by  Kuenen  is  HOB. 
xiii.  2,  with  the  reading,  "Sacrificing  men,  they  kiss  the  calves"  (i.  p.  75). 
Even  so,  the  practice  is  only  mentioned  to  be  condemned.  See  Note  D  on 
Sacrifice  of  Children. 

1  See  above,  p.  120 ;  and  below,  p.  153.  Cf.  Kittel,  Hut.  of  Hebs.  i.  p.  248. 
Cf.  Schultz,  O.T.  Theol.  i.  p.  210.  Professor  W.  R.  Smith  says  :  "  Even  the 
principle  of  the  Second  Commandment,  that  Jehovah  is  not  to  be  worshipped 
by  images  .  .  .  cannot,  in  the  light  of  history,  be  regarded  as  having  M> 
fundamental  a  place  in  the  religion  of  early  Israel." — Prophets,  p.  63. 

'Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  439. 

4  0.  T.  ffi*tory,  p.  18.  Kautzsch  also  thinks  that  the  idea  of  Jehovah 
as  having  bodily  form  continued  till  the  prophetic  age. — "Rel.  of  Israel," 
Diet.  p.  637.  Cf.  Kittel,  Hist,  of  Hebs.  i.  pp.  248  ff. 

•  Thus  generally.  *  Judg.  viii.  27. 


T42     THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

of  Micah,1  the  brazen  serpent  of  Moses.2  It  is  allowed 
that  there  was  no  image  of  Jehovah  in  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem ; 3  but  it  is  urged  that  there  were  other  visible 
symbols,4  and  that  images  were  common  among  the  people.5 
Nothing,  in  our  view,  could  be  more  baseless  than  this 
contention,  but  it  will  be  well  to  look  at  the  subject  more 
closely. 

1.  We  are  entitled  to  say  that  the  oldest  periods  of  the 
history  afford  no  confirmation  of  this  theory.  The  worship 
of  the  patriarchs,  in  the  Book  of  Genesis,  was  without 
images.  The  only  apparent  exception,  as  before  noticed,  is 
in  the  "  teraphim  "  of  Laban's  family.6  What  these  "  tera- 
phim  "  were  is  obscure.  They  are  probably  correctly  enough 
described  by  Kuenen  as  "images  which  were  revered  as 
household  gods,  and  consulted  as  to  the  future."7  They 
were  at  any  rate  not  images  of  Jehovah,  and  were  put  away 
by  Jacob  at  Shechem  as  incompatible  with  the  pure  worship 
of  God.8  In  the  cases  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  of  Jacob,  of 
Joseph,  or,  indeed,  of  any  of  the  patriarchs,  image-worship 
is  not  so  much  as  hinted  at.  "  The  worship  of  God  in  the 
house  of  Abraham,"  as  Dillmann  says,  "  was  imageless." 9 
Baudissin,  indeed,  would  carry  back  the  bull-worship  even 
to  Abraham;10  but  this  is  baseless  conjecture.  Again,  in 
Mosaic  times,  and  in  the  Book  of  Joshua,  there  is  no  sugges- 
tion of  a  lawful  worship  of  images.  The  only  recorded 
instance  of  image-worship  is  in  the  making  of  the  golden 
calf  at  Sinai,11  and  this  is  denounced  and  punished  as  a 
flagrant  transgression,  which  all  but  cost  the  people  their 
covenant  privilege.  The  prohibitions  of  image-worship,  and 
of  participation  in  the  idolatry  of  the  Canaanites,  are,  on  the 
other  hand,  absolute.  The  brazen  serpent  erected  by  Moses 
was  not  an  image  of  Jehovah,  or  an  image  for  worship  at 
all,  though  it  became  at  a  later  time  an  object  of  worship 
to  the  Israelites,  and  was  in  consequence  destroyed  by 

1  Judg.  xvii.  3,  4  ;  xviii.  14,  20,  etc.  *  Num.  xxi.  8,  9. 

*  Kuenen,  Bel.  of  Israel,  i.  pp.  80,  289. 

4  The  ark  is  held  by  Kuenen,  Stade,  etc.,  to  have  been  such  a  symbol. 
The  two  brazen  pillars  in  the  temple  of  Solomon  are  alleged  by  Professor 
W.  R.  Smith  to  have  been  "doubtless  symbols  of  Jehovah." — Rel.  of 
Semites,  p.  191. 

8  Kuenen,  as  above,  p.  80. 

6  Gen.  xxxi.  19,  30-35.  *  Rel.  of  Israel,  p.  246. 

8  Gen.  xxxv.  2-4.  9  Alttest.  Theol.  p.  90. 

10  Cf.  Konig,  Hauplprobleme,  p.  58.  "  Ex.  xxxii. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          143 

Hezekiah.1  Neither  Moses  nor  Joshua  —  none  of  the 
leaders — showed  the  least  tendency  to  image-worship.  The 
first  notice  of  idolatrous  practices  in  the  wilderness  journey- 
ings  is  in  the  prophet  Amos — if  even  there.2 

2.  When  we  pass  to  the  Book  of  Judges,  it  is  different. 
We  are  now  in  a  period  expressly  signalised  as  one  of 
declension  and  sinful  adoption  of  Canaanitish  idolatries.8 
But  even  here  we  seek  in  vain  in  the  greater  part  of  the 
book  for  evidence  of  an  image-worship  of  Jehovah.  The  sin 
for  which  the  people  are  blamed  is  much  more  that  of 
forsaking  Jehovah,  and  serving  "the  Baalim  and  the 
Ashtaroth"  (Astartes),  "the  Baalim  arid  the  Asheroth" 
(sacred  trees  or  poles),  of  their  heathen  neighbours, — an 
undeniable  violation  of  fundamental  law,  —  than  image- 
worship  of  their  own  God.4  One  clear  example  of  the  latter 
is  in  the  case  of  the  Ephraimite  Micah,  whose  images  were 
carried  off  by  the  Danites.6  The  other  case  usually  cited  is 
that  of  Gideon,  who,  after  his  victory  over  the  Midianites, 
made  from  the  spoils  a  golden  "  ephod,"  which,  it  is  declared, 
became  a  "snare"  to  Gideon  and  his  house.*  On  this 
mistaken  act  of  a  man  whose  zeal  had  been  conspicuous 
against  the  Baal  altars  and  the  Asherahs,7  a  whole  edifice  of 
rickety  conjecture  is  built  up.  It  is  first  assumed  that 
Gideon's  "  ephod  "  was  an  "  image  "  of  Jehovah ;  it  is  next 
taken  for  granted  that  the  image  was  in  the  form  of  a 
bull ; 8  lastly,  it  is  concluded  that  bull-worship,  or  at  least 

1  2  Kings  xviii.  4.  Professor  H.  P.  Smith,  who  sees  in  the  brazen  serpent 
•  survival  of  primitive  totemism  in  Israel,  has  some  characteristic  remarks  on 
the  subject.  See  Note  E  on  H.  P.  Smith  on  the  Brazen  Serpent. 

*  Amos  v.  25,  26.     The  interpretation  of  the  passage  ia  much  disputed. 
•Jndg.  ii.  11-14. 

4  Judg.  ii.  11,  18  ;  iii.  7  ;  x.  6,  etc.  It  is  possible,  however,  to  paint 
even  this  period  of  backsliding  and  disorganisation  in  too  dark  colours.  It 
ia,  e.g.,  an  exaggeration  to  say  with  Mr.  Thatcher :  "  There  is  no  conception 
of  spiritual  worship  or  moral  duty  in  our  book." — Judgti  ("Cent.  Bible"), 
Introd.  p.  33.  This  ia  only  true  if  first  of  all  the  higher  elements  (the  repent- 
ances, etc.)  are  critically  eliminated.  The  very  absence  of  image-worship  in 
so  large  a  part  of  the  book  is  a  disproof  of  the  statement.  The  Song  of 
Deborah  strikes  a  lofty,  and  at  the  end,  spiritual  note.  Cf.  above,  p.  131  ; 
and  see  the  remarks  of  Kbnig  on  this  point  in  art.  "Judges,"  Diet,  of  Bible, 
iii.  p.  816  (cf.  below,  p.  384).  Cf.  also  the  Book  of  Ruth. 

•Judg.  xvii.,  xviii. 

«  Ju.lg.  viii.  27.  7  Judg.  vi.  28-32. 

•  Thus  even  Pchultz,  0.  T.  Theol.  \.  p.  149 :  "  The  molten  image  ...  fa, 
according  to  the  analogy  of  other  |>a.*saxc8  (Judg.  xviii.  30  ;  1  Kings  xii.  28 
if. ;  Ex.  xxxii.  4)  to  be  thought  of  as  the  image  of  an  ox."    C£  Kuenen, 
Rtl  of  Israel,  i.  p.  236. 


144    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

image-worship,  was  common  among  the  people.  It  may  be 
observed  that,  even  if  it  were  true  that  Gideon  made  an 
image  for  worship,  these  sweeping  inferences  would  not  be 
justified.  There  would  in  itself  be  nothing  more  wonderful 
in  this  heroic  man  falling  in  his  latter  days  into  the  sin  of 
idolatry,  than  there  is  in  Solomon,  in  his  old  age,  building 
idolatrous  shrines  for  his  wives.1  But  the  inferences  are 
unwarranted  on  other  grounds.  What  the  text  says  is,  not 
that  Gideon  made  an  "image,"  but  that  he  made  an 
"  ephod  "  2 — a  massive  and  costly  piece  of  work,3  certainly, 
and  not  designed  for  actual  use,  but  in  some  way  suggestive 
of  the  high  priest  and  his  oracle.  There  is  no  indication 
that  he  meant  the  ephod  for  worship.  Least  of  all  is  there 
any  ground  for  the  assertion  that  it  was  an  image  in  the 
form  of  a  bull.4  The  ephod  is  expressly  declared  to  have 
become  a  "  snare  "  to  Gideon  and  his  house  :  a  condemnatory 
statement  not  to  be  got  rid  of  by  the  too  easy  hypothesis  of 
interpolation.  There  remains,  therefore,  as  the  single  prop 
of  the  theory  of  an  image- worship  of  Jehovah  in  the  time  of 
the  Judges,  the  case  of  Micah,  who  made  for  himself  "a 
graven  image  and  a  molten  image,"  a  sanctuary,  "  an  ephod 
(here  evidently  distinguished  from  the  images)  and  tera- 
phim  " : 6  an  undisputed  instance  of  idolatry  in  the  worship 
of  Jehovah.  We  willingly  make  a  present  of  this  weak- 
minded,  superstitious  Ephraimite,  and  of  the  Danites  who 
stole  his  images  from  him,  to  the  critics;  but  decline  to 
accept  his  behaviour  as  evidence  of  the  fundamental  law,  or 
better  religious  practice,  in  Israel  It  is  more  to  the  point 
to  notice  that  even  Micah  does  not  appear  to  have  had 
images  till  his  mother  suggested  this  use  of  the  stolen  silver 
to  him. 

3.  The  stronghold  of  the  case  for  image-worship,  how- 

1 1  Kings  xi.  4,  5. 

1  Kuenen,  in  a  long  note  in  liis  fid.  of  Israel  (i.  pp.  260  ff.),  "decidedly 
rejects  "  the  opinion  that  the  ephod  was  an  image  ;  but  in  his  Hibbert  lectures 
he  accepts  it  (p.  82). 

3  This  is  shown  by  the  amount  of  gold  used,  about  70  pounds. 

4  The  idea  rests,  as  the  passage  from  Schultz  above  cited  shows,  on  the 
reading  back  into  the  time  of  the  Judges  of  the  calf- worship  of  Jeroboam.    It 
has  no  basis  in  the  Book  of  Judges  itself.     Even  so  extreme  a  rationalist  as 
Dr.  Oort  contests  this  idea  (cf.  Kuenen,  i.  pp.  261-62). 

8  Judg.  xvii.  3-6  ;  xviii.  14,  20.  Budile  says  of  Micah's  ephod,  which 
he  takes  to  be  "a  silver,  oracular  image,"  that  "unfortunately  we  do  not 
know  its  form." — Eel.  of  Israel,  p.  80.  See  Note  F  on  Dillmann  on  Image- 
Worship. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          145 

ever,  is  in  the  two  calves  of  gold  which  Jeroboam  set  up  at 
Bethel  and  Dan,  after  the  division  of  the  kingdom.  It  is 
true  that  no  hint  is  given  that  such  images  were  known 
before  in  Israel,  unless  the  words,  "Behold  thy  gods,  0 
Israel,  which  brought  thee  up  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,"  be 
an  allusion  to  the  golden  calf  of  Ex.  xxxii ;  but  it  is 
thought  unlikely  that  Jeroboam  would  set  up  a  symbol 
entirely  new,1  and  it  is  pointed  out — at  least  alleged — that 
no  protest  was  made  against  the  worship  of  the  calves  by 
prophets  like  Elijah  and  Amos.2  The  denunciations  in  the 
Books  of  Kings  are  regarded  as  representing  a  later  point  of 
view.  Here,  again,  the  history  which  we  have  is  thrust 
aside  and  a  new  history  invented  which  suits  the  critic's 
theory.  No  ingenuity,  however,  can  give  this  new  theory 
the  semblance  of  probability.  How  strange,  if  this  was  an 
old  and  well-known  custom  in  Israel,  that  absolutely  no 
trace  of  it  should  be  discoverable,  or  that  it  should  need  to 
be  "  revived  " !  How  remarkable  that  nothing  of  this  bull- 
worship  should  be  known  in  Jerusalem,  or  in  the  temple, 
the  seat  of  Jehovah's  worship,8  in  which  there  was  no  image, 
or,  apparently,  in  Judah  generally,  where  it  was  universally 
regarded  as  an  abomination  !  The  narrator  in  the  Book  of 
Kings,  who  had  access  to  old  records,  plainly  regarded  it  as 
something  new.  The  judgment  of  the  prophets,  when  we 
turn  to  these,  does  not  differ  from  that  of  the  Book  of 
Kings.  Hosea,  it  is  generally  admitted,  is  unsparing  in  his 
denunciation  of  the  calves,4  and  he  was  a  prophet  of 
Northern  Israel.  It  is  held,  however,  that  his  attitude  in 
this  respect  is  not  that  of  his  predecessors.  "  There  is  no 
failure  in  Hosea's  prophecy,"  says  Professor  W.  R  Smith, 
"  which  distinguishes  him  from  earlier  prophets  so  sharply 

1  A  connection  is  conjecturally  sought  with  the  old  sanctuary  at  Dan, 
Judg.  xviii.  29-31. 

1  Thus  Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  Stade,  W.  R.  Smith,  and  generally.  The 
suggestion  may  he  made  that  Jeroboam  got  the  idea  from  Egypt,  where  he 
resided  from  the  time  of  his  revolt  against  Solomon  till  the  accession  of 
Rehoboam  (I  Kings  xi.  40 ;  xii.  1-8).  Kuenen,  however,  rejects  this,  and 
says :  "  It  is  much  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  ten  tribes  who  rebelled 
against  Solomon's  exactions,  and  his  leanings  towards  foreign  manners  and 
customs,  introduced  a  genuinely  national  and  ancient  Israel  itish  worship." — 
Bel.  oflgratl,  i.  p.  236. 

1  Are  the  "  lions,  own,  and  cherubim**  that  supported  the  "  bases  "  in 
the  temple  (1  Kings  vii.  29)  thought  to  be  an  exception  T  They  were 
certainly  not  objects  of  worship. 

4  Hos.  viii.  5,  6  ;  xiii.  2. 


10 


146    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

as  his  attitude  to  the  golden  calves,  the  local  symbols  of 
Jehovah  adored  in  the  Northern  sanctuaries.  Elijah  and 
Elisha  had  no  quarrel  with  the  traditional l  worship  of  their 
nation.  Even  Amos  never  speaks  in  condemnation  of  the 
calves."2  This  last  sentence  is  astonishing.  To  the 
ordinary  reader  Amos  and  Hosea  would  seem  to  speak 
with  precisely  the  same  voice  on  the  Northern  calf-worship 
— Amos,  if  possible,  with  the  greater  vehemence  of  the  two. 
"When  I  visit  the  transgressions  of  Israel  upon  him,"  says  this 
prophet, "  I  will  also  visit  the  altars  of  Bethel."  3  "  Come  to 
Bethel,"  he  exclaims,  "  and  transgress."  4  He  speaks  of  those 
"  that  swear  by  the  sin  of  Samaria,  and  that  swear,  As  thy 
god,  0  Dan,  liveth."5  Even  Kuenen  agrees  that  Amos 
speaks  in  the  same  way  as  Hosea  of  the  calf- worship.6 

With  greater  plausibility  it  may  be  maintained  that 
there  is  no  direct  denunciation  of  the  calf-worship  by  Elijah 
and  Elisha.  The  argument  from  silence,  however,  is  a  peculi- 
arly unsafe  one  here.  In  the  only  episodes  in  which  Elijah  is 
brought  before  us,  he  is  engaged  in  a  life-and-death  struggle 
of  another  kind — the  conflict  between  Jehovah  and  Baal 
arising  from  the  introduction  of  the  Tyrian  Baal-worship 
into  Samaria  by  Ahab  and  Jezebel.7  It  requires  great  faith 
to  believe  that  a  stern  and  zealous  monotheist  like  Elijah 
could  have  any  toleration  for  the  calf-worship,  which  every 
other  prophet  of  that  age  is  represented  as  denouncing.8 
It  is  a  sounder  application  of  the  argument  from  silence 
to  observe  that  Elijah  is  never  found  as  a  worshipper  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  Bethel  or  Dan,  and  that  he  never 
drops  a  word  indicative  of  recognition  of  that  worship.9 
When  he  speaks  despairingly  of  Jehovah's  altars  being 
thrown  down,10  he  can  hardly  have  included  Bethel  and  Dan 
among  their  number,  for  these  altars  stood,  and  doubtless 

1  The  reader  will  mark  thepelitio  in  the  word  "  traditional."    To  Professor 
Smith  also  the  calf-worship  is  as  old  as  the  days  of  the  Judges  (Propliets, 
p.  96). 

2  Prophets,  p.  175. 

8  Amos  iii.  14.  *  Amos  iv.  4  ;  cf.  v.  4,  5. 

8  Amos  viii.  14. 

8  Rd.  of  Israel,  i.  pp.  73-74.     Cf.  the  pungent  remarks  of  Dr.  A.  B. 
Davidson,  Bib.  Essays,  pp.  91,  120-22. 

7  1  Kings  xvi.  30-34. 

8  E.g.,  Ahijah  (1  Kings  xiv.  7  ff.) ;  the  prophet  from  Judah  (chap.  xiii. 
2) ;  Jehu,  the  son  of  Hanani  (chap.  xvi.  1,  2). 

9  Elisha  was  mocked  at  Bethel  (2  Kings  ii.  23). 
10  1  Kings  xix.  10. 


H.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          147 

had  their  crowds  of  worshippers.  We  may  suppose  that  to  him 
they  would  be  practically  in  the  category  of  the  Baal-altars. 
And  does  his  threatening  to  Ahab,  "  I  will  make  thine  house 
like  the  house  of  Jeroboam,  the  son  of  Nebat," l  etc.,  convey 
no  allusion  to  that  by  wliich  peculiarly  Jeroboam  "made 
Israel  to  sin  "  ? 

A  dispassionate  review,  therefore,  of  this  long  catalogue 
of  superstitions  alleged  to  belong  to  {>re-prophetic  religion 
in  Israel  fails  to  establish  the  theory  of  the  critics  that  any 
one  of  these  formed  part  of  the  genuine  religion  of  Israel. 
They  show  abundant  defection  in  particular  periods  from 
the  pure  norm  of  that  religion ;  but  the  evidence  is  over- 
whelming that  they  were  foreign  to  the  true  genius  of  the 
religion,  were  condemned  by  its  laws  and  by  the  prophets, 
and  at  no  time  received  countenance  from  its  great  .re- 
presentatives. The  ideas  on  which  the  religion  rested — the 
unity,  holiness,  universal  providence,  and  saving  purpose  of 
God — were,  as  before  shown,  entirely  distinct  from  those 
of  other  religions.  As  it  is  with  the  idea  of  God  and  with 
the  adjuncts  of  His  worship,  so,  we  shall  next  see,  it  is  with 
the  institutions  of  the  religion. 

1 1  Kings  xxL  21-24. 


CHAPTER  VI 

TTbc  ©U>  Testament  as  affectefc  bs  Criticism— 
HE.  "Religion  an&  Snstitutfons :  Hrh,  Zlabcr- 
nacle,  priestboo&,  etc. 


"  I  believe  that,  alongside  of  the  modern  representations,  which  resolve 
the  founders  of  the  Old  Testament  religion  into  flitting  shadows  that  elude 
the  grasp,  and  throw  overboard  the  solid  mass  of  the  Pentateuchal  history, 
like  unnecessary  ballast  from  a  ship,  my  attempt  will  still  meet  with  sym- 
pathy, to  find  an  intelligible  meaning  in  the  narrative  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  to  apprehend  the  religion  of  Abraham  as  the  preliminary  stage,  and  the 
proclamation  of  Moses  as  the  foundation,  of  the  Old  Testament  faith, 
thought,  and  life.  The  Bible  remains  :  scientific  attempts  to  represent 
the  Biblical  history  come  and  go." — KLOSTEIIMANN. 

"  It  [German  criticism]  has  generally  been  wanting  in  flexibility  and 
moderation.  It  has  insisted  upon  knowing  everything,  ex  plaining  everything, 
precisely  determining  everything.  .  .  .  Hence  complicated  and  obscure 
theories,  provided  with  odd  comers  in  which  all  the  details  may  be  sheltered, 
and  which  leave  the  mind  little  opening  or  leisure  to  observe  the  tendency 
of  facts  and  the  general  currents  of  history." — DARMESTETEK  (in  Ottley). 

"In  Wellhansen's  review  of  the  history,  he  has  much  to  say  of  the 
gradual  rise  of  feasts  from  the  presentation  of  first-fruits,  and  of  their 
annual  observance  at  neighbourhood  sanctuaries,  and  the  growth  of  larger 
sanctuaries  towards  the  close  of  the  period  of  the  Judges.  .  .  .  But  the  whole 
thing  is  spun  out  of  his  own  brain.  It  is  as  purely  fictitious  as  an  astro- 
nomical map  would  be  of  the  other  side  of  the  moon." — W.  H.  GREEN. 


160 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM 
—EL  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS :  ARK,  TABER- 
NACLE, PRIESTHOOD,  ETC. 

THE  subject  of  laws  aud  institutions  in  Israel  is  bound  up 
with  so  many  intricate  critical  questions  as  to  dates  and 
succession  of  codes,  that  it  may  seem  scarcely  possible  to 
deal  with  it  satisfactorily  till  the  critical  questions  have 
been,  at  least  in  some  provisional  way,  disposed  of.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  discussion  of  laws 
and  institutions  does  not  wholly  depend  on  the  conclusions 
reached  on  such  matters,  say,  as  the  age  of  Deuteronomy, 
or  date  of  compilation  of  the  Priestly  Code ;  for,  conceivably, 
these  books,  in  their  present  form,  might  be  late,  yet  the 
laws  embodied  in  them  might  be  very  old.1  It  will  be 
found,  in  fact,  that  the  determination  of  the  critical 
questions  themselves  depends  in  no  small  measure  on  the 
view  we  are  led  to  take  of  the  history  and  nature  of  the 
institutions.1  There  is  room  and  need,  therefore,  for  some 
preliminary  consideration  of  the  latter,  so  far  as  this  can 
be  done  without  begging  any  question  not  yet  critically 
dealt  with. 

I.  GENERAL  POSITION  OF  MOSES  AS  LAWGIVER 

We  may  first  advert  a  little  further  than  has  yet  been 
done  to  the  general  position  assigned  to  Moses  in  tradition 
as  the  lawgiver  of  Israel.*  This  is  a  point  on  which  the 
critics  can  hardly  avoid  involving  themselves  in  some 
inconsistency.  On  the  one  hand,  it  is  necessary  to  exalt 

1  This  is  the  position  taken  up  by  some  critics,  as  Kbnig. 
*  See  Wellhauson  above,  p.  6. 
'  See  above,  Chap.  IV.  pp.  98-99. 

161 


152     THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

the  personality  and  work  of  Moses,  in  order  to  explain  how 
it  comes  about  that  all  the  legislation  in  the  Old  Testament 
is  connected  with  his  name;1  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
necessary  to  minimise  his  influence  almost  to  vanishing 
point,  in  order  to  make  it  credible  that  he  really  gave  to 
Israel  no  laws  at  all — none  at  least  of  which  we  have  any 
knowledge.  It  will  be  recalled  how  we  are  told  that 
"  Malachi  is  the  first  of  the  prophets  to  refer  to  a  Mosaic 
code." z  This  line  of  reasoning,  as  shown  before,  is  fatuous, 
The  JE  history,  put  by  the  critics  as  early  as  the  ninth  or 
eighth  century,  gives  the  foremost  place  to.  Moses  as  a  law- 
giver. The  Book  of  the  Covenant,  older  than  this  history, 
and  incorporated  into  it,  is  expressly  ascribed  to  Moses  as 
its  author.  The  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  again,  whenever 
written,  is  evidence  that  Israel  had  but  one  tradition  about 
Moses — that  he  gave  and  wrote  laws  for  the  nation.  The 
force  of  this  testimony  is  not  in  the  least  satisfied  by  sup- 
posing, with  Wellhausen,  W.  E.  Smith,  and  others,  that  the 
repute  of  Moses  rested  on  such  oral  decisions  as  those 
referred  to  in  Ex.  xviii.  13-16,  26.3  Budde  will  have 
nothing  to  do  with  this  basing  of  the  legislation  of  Moses 
on  these  oral  toroth  of  Ex.  xviii.,4  and  there  is  certainly 
something  arbitrary  in  founding  on  this  chapter  as  more 
historically  trustworthy  than  its  neighbours.  If  it  is 
accepted,  one  must  notice  the  evidence  it  yields  of  a  high 
organisation  of  the  people  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus.6 
What  then  are  the  reasons  for  refusing  to  Moses  such 
legislation  as  the  Old  Testament  ascribes  to  him  ? 

1.  If  anything  can  be  attributed  with  certainty  to  Moses, 
it  surely  is  the  Decalogue,  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of 
the  whole  covenant  relation  of  Jehovah  to  Israel.  Yet  even 
this,  which  Delitzsch  calls  "the  most  genuine  of  genuine 

1  Of.  "Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  432  ff.,  438  ff.  ;  Kuenen,  Ed. 
of  Israel,  i.  pp.  272  ff.  The  latter  says:  "The  collections  of  laws  were 
fearlessly  embellished  with  his  name,  because  it  was  known  that  he  had  laid 
the  foundations  of  all  legislation  "  (p.  279).  He  thinks,  indeed,  that  "this 
he  could  do  without  writing  down  a  single  precept." 

*  Carpenter,  as  above,  p.  98.  "  The  prophets  of  the  eighth  century,"  says 
Professor  W.  R.  Smith,  "never  speak  of  a  written  law  of  Moses." — O.T.  in 
J.  0.,  p.  302.  To  show  this,  he  has  to  put  a  non-natural  sense  on  Hos. 
viiL  12  (see  below,  p.  325).  But  at  least  the  prophets  knew  of  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant,  professing  to  be  written  by  Moses. 

8  Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  439  ;  W.  R.  Smith,  O.T.  in  J.  C.,  pp. 
304,  339. 

4  Rel.  of  Israel,  p.  33.  •  Ex.  xviii.  21,  25. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          153 

productions,"1  it  has  of  late  become  almost  universally  the 
fashion  to  deny  to  the  lawgiver.  But  on  what  subjective 
and  arbitrary  grounds ! 2  A  main  reason,  as  we  have  seen, 
is  the  prohibition  of  images  in  the  Second  Commandment 8 — 
a  subject  already  discussed.4  Apart  from  this,  and  the  too 
elevated  idea  of  God  in  the  Decalogue  as  a  whole,  two 
special  objections  may  be  noticed:  (1)  the  variation  in  the 
form  of  the  Fourth  Commandment  in  the  Deuteronomic 
version,6  and  (2)  the  alleged  occurrence  of  a  second  Deca- 
logue in  Ex.  xxxiv.  12-26 — a  notion  borrowed  from  Goethe. 
The  first  of  these  objections  comes  badly  from  those  who 
see  in  Deuteronomy  a  free  prophetic  composition  of  the 
age  of  Josiah,  and,  apart  from  the  supposition  of  an 
original  shorter  form,  seems  sufficiently  met  by  Delitzsch's 
remark  that  "  the  Decalogue  is  there  freely  rendered  in  the 
flow  of  hortatory  oratory,  and  not  literally  reproduced."6 
The  variation  may  indeed  be  regarded  as  an  incidental  mark 
of  genuineness  in  Deuteronomy,  for  hardly  any  other  than 
the  lawgiver  would  be  likely  to  allow  himself  this  liberty 
of  change.  The  second  objection  derives  some  colour  from 
a  slight  ambiguity  or  confusion  in  the  language  of  Ex.  xxxiv. 
'27,  28 ;  but  cannot  overbear  the  clear  connection  of  ver.  28, 
"And  He  (Jehovah)  wrote  upon  the  tables  the  words  of 
the  covenant,  the  ten  commandments  (words),"  with  ver.  1, 
"  I  will  write  upon  the  tables  the  words  which  were  upon 
the  first  tables,  which  thou  brakest,"  or  the  plain  intention 
of  the  narrative  as  a  whole.  The  so-called  second  Decalogue 
of  J  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  12-26,  is,  in  fact,  pretty  much,  as  scholars 
are  coming  to  see,  a  figment  of  the  critical  imagination.  It 
is  only  by  straining  that  the  section  can  be  made  into  a 
Decalogue  at  all,7  and,  with  its  mixed  precepts,  it  has  no 

1  Genesis,  i.  p.  29.  Smend  also  formerly  wrote :  "  The  Decalogue, 
whose  Mosaic  origin  no  one  can  doubt."— Stud.  u.  Krit.  1876,  p.  643. 
Of.  in  defence  of  the  genuineness,  Riehm,  Einleit.  i.  p.  166  ;  Eittel,  Hist,  of 
Hebs.  i.  p.  244  ff.  (in  shorter  form). 

*  For  a  summary  byAddis,  see  Note  A  on  Objections  to  the  Decalogue. 
Cf.  also  Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  892-93,  439  ff. ;  Smend,  AlUcst. 
Reliyionsyescliichte,  p.  47. 

*  "There  would  be  no  valid  reason,"  says  Kautzsch,  "for  refusing  to 
attribute  to  Moses  himself  a  primitive,  concise  form  of  the  Decalogue,  were 
it  not  for  the  formidable  difficulty  presented  by  the  jtrohibiiion  of  the  use  of 
images."—  "Eel.  of  Israel,"  Diet.  p.  633. 

4  See  above,  pp.  141  ff.  •  Deut  v.  15. 

8  Genesis,  i.  p.  30. 

7  Scarcely  two  critics  divide  the  precepts  so  as  to  make  ten  in  precisely 


154    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM  — 

suitability  for  taking  the  place  of  the  historical  "  words " 
of  the  tablea1 

2.  If  the  Decalogue  is  allowed  to  be  Mosaic,  there  is 
little  reason  for  denying  that  the  remaining  laws  ("judg- 
ments ")  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  with  which  the  "  ten 
words "  stand  in  so  close  a  connection,  also  proceeded  from 
Moses  in  substantially  their  present  form.2  The  principal 
objection  urged  to  this  is  that  they  imply  a  settled  life 
and  agriculture.3  But,  on  the  one  hand,  the  laws  in 
question  are  of  a  very  primitive  and  simple  character, 
probably  resting  on  old  usage;4  and,  on  the  other,  the 
people  were  not  the  undisciplined  horde  the  critics  for 
their  own  purposes  would  make  them  out  to  be.5  They 
had  long  had  the  experience  of  orderly  and  settled  life, 
and  were,  moreover,  on  the  point  of  entering  Canaan. 
They  were  organised,  and  had  "statutes  of  God"  and 
"  laws  "  given  them  in  the  wilderness.6  What  more  likely 
in  itself  than  that  Moses,  by  divine  command,  should  draw 
up  for  them  a  simple  code,  suited  for  present  and  prospective 
needs  ?  How,  indeed,  could  a  people  like  Israel  have  been 
kept  together,  or  have  preserved  its  distinction  from  the 
Canaanites,  without  some  such  body  of  laws, — moral,  civil, 
and  religious,7 — and  this  not  simply  in  the  form  of  floating 

the  same  way,  and  the  attempt  to  do  so  is  now  being  pretty  generally  given 
up,  even  by  advanced  critics.  Addis  speaks  of  the  division  into  ten  as 
"  mere  guess-work."  "  Many  critics,"  he  says,  "  (e.g.,  Wellhausen),  adopting 
a  suggestion  of  Goethe,  have  tried  to  disentangle  ten  '  words  of  the 
covenant,'  answering  to  the  Ten  Words  or  Decalogue  of  the  Elohist.  This, 
however,  is  mere  guess-work." — Hex.  i.  p.  157.  Carpenter  also  does  not 
favour  the  notion.  Kittel  says  :  "It  requires  the  utmost  arbitrariness  even 
to  find  in  it  the  number  ten." — Hist,  of  Hebs.  i.  p.  198.  Kautzsch  rejects 
the  second  Decalogue. 

1  Cf.  Kittel  and  Riehm,  as  above,  in  reply  to  Wellhausen. 

*  Thus  Delitzsch,  Genesis,  i.  p.  31. 

8  Thus  Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  Addis,  etc.    Cf.  Riehra  in  reply,  i.  pp.  170  tf. 
4  The  Code  of  Hammurabi  presents  interesting  ancient  analogies.     See 

for  details  art.  in  Diet,  of  BMe  (Extra  Vol.).  One  regrets  to  find  Mr. 
Johns,  in  the  section  on  comparison  with  Hebrew  legislation,  writing  in 
the  usual  flippant  style — "The  current  opinion  of  critics  does  not  ascribe 
much  of  the  Hebrew  law  to  Moses.  So  his  personality  may  be  set  aside  " 
(p.  608). 

9  See  above,  pp.  79,  104.  «  Ex.  xviii.  16,  21,  25. 

7  Wellhausen  himself  points  out  that  "when  the  Israelites  settled  in 
Palestine,  they  found  it  inhabited  by  a  population  superior  to  themsel7es 
both  in  numbers  and  in  civilisation,"  yet  "it  never  had  the  effect  of 
making  the  Israelites  Canaanites  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  made  the  Canaanites 
Israelites.  Notwithstanding  their  inferiority,  numerical  and  otherwise, 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          155 

oral  toroth,  but  in  the  shape  of  definite,  authoritative 
"statutes  and  judgments,"  such  as  the  history,  the  prophets, 
and  the  psalms,  uniformly  assume  the  nation  to  have 
possessed?1  And  if  this  was  needed,  can  we  suppose 
that  a  man  of  Moses'  capabilities  and  prescient  mind  would 
have  left  the  people  without  it?  We  have  several  codes 
of  laws — "  programmes  " —  which  the  critics  assume  to  have 
arisen  at  various  junctures  in  the  history  of  the  nation. 
But,  as  Dr.  Kobertson  observes,  "it  is  strange  indeed  that 
critical  historians  should  postulate  the  putting  forth  of 
'  legislative  programmes '  at  various  later  points  in  Israel's 
history,  and  should  be  so  unwilling  to  admit  the  same  for 
the  time  of  Moses."2  We  seem  fully  entitled,  therefore, 
in  accordance  with  the  whole  tradition  of  Israel,  to  look 
on  Moses  as  the  fountain  of  both  civil  and  religious  institu- 
tions to  his  nation,  s.nd  to  consider  without  prejudice  any 
statements  attributing  such  institutions  to  his  time.  The 
question  of  ritual  laws  demands  separate  treatment 

II.  THE  SACRIFICIAL  SYSTEM  AND  RITUAL  LAW 

The  Book  of  the  Covenant  deals  mainly  with  civil 
matters,  and,  except  in  the  law  of  the  altar,8  and  the 
ordinance  about  the  three  feasts,*  has  no  properly  religious 
enactments.  This  of  itself  creates  a  not  unreasonable  pre- 
sumption that  such  will  be  found  elsewhere.  To  most  it 
will  appear  incredible  that,  in  settling  the  constitution  of 
Israel,  Moses  should  not  have  given  the  people,  among  his 
other  laws,  at  least  some  ordinances  for  religious  worship. 
The  critico,  however,  hold  a  directly  contrary  opinion.  Not 
content  with  denying  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  any 
ritual  legislation,  they  go  so  far  as  to  maintain  that,  till 
the  time  of  the  exile,  no  sacrificial  or  other  ritual  existed 
which  was  even  believed  to  have  Mosaic  or  divine  sanction. 
The  prophets,  it  is  declared,  show  clearly  by  their  denuncia- 
tions that  they  know  nothing  of  such  a  divinely-ordained 
ritual  "  Thus  it  is,"  says  Wellhausen,  "  that  the  prophets 

they  maintained  their  individuality,  and  that  without  the  support  of  any 
external  organisation.  Thus  a  certain  inner  unity  suhsisb-d  lone  before 
it  bad  found  any  outward  political  expression  :  it  goes  back  to  the  time 
of  MOM*,  who  is  to  be  regarded  as  its  author." — Hut.  of  Israel,  p.  433. 

1  See  below,  pp.  308,  824.  *  Early  Reli-iion  of  I$rael,  p.  387. 

»  Ex.  xx.  24-2«.  4  Ex.  xxiii.  14-19. 


156    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

are  able  to  ask  whether  then  Jehovah  has  commanded  Hia 
people  to  tax  their  energies  with  such  exertions :  the  fact 
presupposed  being  that  no  such  command  exists,  and  that 
no  one  knows  anything  at  all  about  a  ritual  torah." l  The 
idea  of  a  ritual  which  "  goes  back  to  Moses  or  to  Jehovah 
Himself " 2  is  said  to  be  foreign  to  them.  It  first  came  in 
with  the  Priestly  Code,  which  is  so  insistent  on  the  Mosaic 
origin  of  lawful  sacrifice  that  it  carefully  avoids,  in  the 
earlier  history,  ever  ascribing  sacrifice  to  the  patriarchs.3 
Without  at  this  stage  entering  into  details,  which  will 
more  properly  come  up  when  discussing  the  Code  itself, 
we  would  make  on  these  representations  the  following 
remarks : — 

1.  There  is,  to  put  it  mildly,  some  absurdity  in  the  often- 
repeated  statement  that  "  the  Priestly  Writer  knows  nothing 
of  sacrifice  by  the  servants  of  God  before  Moses."4  We 
might  ask — How  often  is  sacrifice  mentioned  altogether  in 
the  Book  of  Genesis  ?  And  in  how  many  instances  does 
the  meagre  thread  of  narrative  assigned  to  the  Priestly 
Writer  admit  of  the  act  of  sacrifice  being  introduced  ?  But 
there  is  a  more  obvious  answer — one  of  which  a  good  deal 
more  will  be  heard  as  we  proceed.  The  Priestly  Writer 
knew  at  least  about  the  patriarchal  sacrifices  all  that  the 
J  and  E  histories  had  to  tell  him ;  for  he  had,  on  the  newer 
theory,  these  histories  before  him,  presupposes  and  founds 
upon  them,  if  he  does  not  actually  furnish  the  frame  in 
which  their  narratives  are  set.5  He  cannot,  therefore,  be 
supposed  designedly  to  contradict  them  on  this  point  of 
patriarchal  sacrifices.6  It  is  in  truth  no  part  of  the  theory 

1  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  56 ;  cf.  the  whole  section,  pp.  52-59.  Thus  also 
Knenen,  Hex.  pp.  176-77 ;  W.  R.  Smith,  O.T.  in  J.  C.,  pp.  293-95.  "All 
this,"  says  Professor  Smith,  "  is  so  clear  that  it  seems  impossible  to  misunder- 
stand it.  Yet  the  position  of  the  prophets  is  not  only  habitually  explained 
away  by  those  who  are  determined^  at  any  cost  to  maintain  the  traditional 
view  of  the  Pentateuch, "  etc.  We  shall  see  immediately  about  the  "  explain- 
ing away." 

*  Hi-,t.  of  Isntel,  p.  56.  *  Ibid. 

4  Addis,  Hex.  p.  li  •  See  below,  pp.  340,  360. 

8  Colenso,  in  combating  Kuenen  on  this  point,  says :  "  Is  it  credible  that 
he  supposed  the  patriarchs  to  have  offered  no  sacrifices  at  all  before  the 
delivery  of  the  sacrificial  laws  at  Siuai — more  especially  if  he  had  before  him 
the  sacrifices  mentioned  in  Gen.  iv.  3,  4  ;  viii.  20,  21  ;  xxxi.  54  ;  xlvi.  1, 
etc.  "  ;  and  in  another  connection  :  "  It  seems  incredible  that  a  later  post- 
captivity  writer,  sitting  down  (as  Kuenen  supposes)  with  the  J  narrative 
before  him,  and  of  course  known  to  him,  and  now  venerable  by  age,  should 
deliberately  contradict  it"— Pent.  Pt.  vi.  pp.  126,  139. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          157 

of  the  Priestly  Writer  that  sacrifices  began  with  Moses. 
His  own  legislation  gives  no  hint  that  up  to  that  time  these 
were  unheard-of.  Bather,  in  such  phrases  as,  "  If  any  man 
bring  an  offering  to  Jehovah,"  ...  "If  his  offering  be  a 
burnt  offering  of  the  herd,"1  etc.,  it  assumes  that  such 
sacrifices  are  well-known  and  customary. 

2.  As  little  can  it  be  maintained,  with  any  show  of 
reason,  that,  up  to  the  time  of  the  exile,  sacrifice  in  Israel 
was  simply,  as  Wellhausen  affirms,  traditional  custom, 
without  divine  sanction,  or  regulation  of  the  when,  the 
where,  the  by  whom,  the  how*  The  Book  of  the  Covenant 
already  makes  a  beginning  in  regulations  about  the  altar, 
and  the  times  and  manner  of  sacrifice  —  "My  sacrifice";8 
and  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  "  which  still  occupies  the 
same  standpoint  as  JE,"4  has  abundance  of  prescriptions 
and  regulations  about  sacrifices  —  described  as  "all  that  I 
command  you."6  How  can  it  be  claimed  that  Jeremiah, 
whose  mind  is  steeped  in  Deuteronomy  —  if  he  had  not, 
as  some  of  these  writers  think,  to  do  with  its  production  — 
is  ignorant  of  these  commands,  or  means  to  deny  them,  in 
his  impassioned  protestations  that  it  was  not  about  burnt 
offerings  and  sacrifices,  but  about  obedience,  that  God 
commanded  their  fathers,  when  He  brought  them  out  of 


3.  The  strong  language  of  the  prophets  in  denunciation 
of  outward  ritual?  while  the  ethical  side  of  religion  was 
neglected,  admits  of  easy  explanation  :  the  one  explanation 
it  will  not  bear,  it  is  safe  to  say,  is  that  which  the  critics 
put  upon  it  This  for  a  twofold  reason.  Probably,  first, 
not  one  of  these  prophets  could  form  the  conception  of  a 
religion  for  a  nation  which  bad  not  ita  temple,  priesthood, 
sacrifices,  and  outward  order  of  worship,  or  ever  dreamt  of 
the  abolition  of  these  things  ;  and,  second,  so  far  from  regard- 
ing sacrifice  as  not  well-pleasing  to  Jehovah,  when  the  right 
spirit  was  present,  there  is  not  one  of  the  greater  prophets 
who  does  not  include  sacrifice  in  his  own  picture  of  the 

1  Lev.  i.  2,  8,  etc.  *  Hut.  of  Isnul,  p.  54. 

•  Ex.  zx.  24,  25  ;  xxiii.  18,  19.  «  Wellhausen,  aa  aboye. 

•  Deut  xiL  11,  etc. 

•  Jer.  ril  22,  24.     Professor  W.  R.  Smith  nevertheless  thinks  "  it  is 
impossible  to  give  *  flatter  contradiction  to  the  traditional  theory  that  the 
Levitiral  system  was  enacted  in  the  wilderness."—  O.T.  in  J.  ('.,  p,  295. 

1  Amos  iv.  4,  5  ;  T.  21,  27  ;  Is*,  i.  10-15  ;  Jer.  vii.  23,  23,  etc. 


158    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

restored  and  perfected  theocracy.1  It  is  to  be  remembered 
that  it  is  not  sacrifice  alone,  but  prayer,  feast-days,  Sabbaths, 
etc.,  that  the  prophets  include  in  their  denunciations ;  yet 
we  know  the  importance  they  attached  to  prayer  and  the 
Sabbath  in  other  parts  of  their  writings.2  In  many  places 
and  ways,  also,  we  see  incidentally  their  recognition  of  the 
divine  sanction  of  these  outward  ordinances,  which,  in  other 
connections,  viz.,  when  made  a  substitute  for  heart-piety 
and  moral  conduct,  they  condemn.  It  was  in  vision  of  the 
temple  of  Jehovah  that  Isaiah  received  his  call,  and  by 
the  touch  of  a  live  coal  from  the  altar  that  his  lips  were 
purged.3  It  is  Jehovah's  courts — "  My  courts  " — that  were 
profaned  by  the  people's  splendid  but  unholy  worship;* 
just  as  in  Hosea  it  is  "the  sacrifices  of  Mine  offerings" 
which  the  people  turn  into  "sacrifices  of  flesh."5  If  the 
40th  Psalm  is  relegated,  as  on  the  critical  theory  it  must 
be,  to  post-exilian  times,  we  read  in  it  also :  "  Sacrifice  and 
offering  Thou  didst  not  desire  .  .  .  burnt  offering  and  sin 
offering  hast  Thou  not  required."  c  But  who  misunderstands 
these  words  ? 

4.  Strange  to  say,  all  this,  and  a  great  deal  more,  is,  in 
the  end,  admitted  by  the  critics.  Their  argument  means 
nothing,  if  it  does  not  amount  to  a  rejection  by  the  prophets 
of  a  ritual  worship  of  God  absolutely.  Yet  we  are  told  by 
Kuenen :  "  We  must  not  assert  that  the  prophets  reject  the 
cultus  unconditionally.  On  the  contrary,  they  too  share 
the  belief,  for  instance,  that  sacrifice  is  an  essential  element 
of  true  worship  (Isa.  Ivi.  7 ;  Zech.  xiv.  16-19 ;  Mic.  iv.  1  ff. ; 
Isa.  ii.  1  ff. ;  xviii.  7 ;  xix.  19  ff.,  etc.  etc.).  The  context 
always  shows  that  what  they  really  protest  against  is  the 
idea  that  it  is  enough  to  take  part  in  the  cultus,"  etc.7 
Only,  it  is  argued,  they  did  not  allow  this  cultus  to  be  of 
Mosaic  or  divine  origin.  It  is  precisely  on  this  point  that 
the  proof  fails.  The  proof  was  supposed  to  be  found  in  the 
fact  that  the  prophets  condemned  the  cultus ;  now  it  is 
owned  that  they  did  not  condemn  it  as  in  any  sense  incoro- 

1  Of.  Isa.  Ivi.  6,  7 ;  Ix.  7  ;  Ixvi.  23,  etc. ;  Jer.  xvii.  24-27  ;  xxxiii.  17-18, 
etc.  (cf.  p.  95)  ;  Ezek.  xl.  ff. 

1  Cf.  Jer.  xvii.  21-27;  "As  I  commanded  your  fathers"  (ver.  22); 
Isa.  Iviii.  13,  14. 

»  Isa.  vi.  *  Isa.  i.  12.  •  Hos.  viii.  13.  •  Ps.  xl.  6. 

7  Hex.  p.  176 ;  cf.  Smend,  Alttest.  Religionsgeschichte,  p.  168.  See  also 
Smend's  article,  referred  to  on  next  page. 


IL  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          159 

patible  with  the  belief  that  it  was  a  lawful  and  necessary 
part  of  the  service  of  Jehovah.  If,  further,  we  ask — What 
kind  of  cultus  was  it  which  existed  in  the  days  of  the 
prophets?  we  get  a  number  of  surprising  admissions,  to 
which  it  will  be  necessary  that  we  return  later.  It  was  a 
cultus  "  of  very  old  and  sacred  usage," l  and  highly  elaborate 
in  character.  There  were  "  splendid  sacrifices  .  .  .  presum- 
ably offered  in  accordance  with  all  the  rules  of  priestly 
skill."  *  We  have,  in  fact,  only  to  analyse  the  passages  in 
the  prophets  to  see  what  a  highly  elaborate  ritual  system 
was  already  in  operation  in  their  day — as  elaborate,  practi- 
cally, as  in  the  Levitical  Code  itself.  It  is  interesting  to 
read  what  one  of  the  ablest  adherents  of  the  Graf  school — 
Rudolf  Smend  —  had  to  say  on  this  point  at  an  earlier 
stage  in  his  development.  In  his  work  Moses  apud 
Prophctas,  Smend  discerns  what  he  calls  "  Levitismus"  peering 
out  from  the  pages  of  the  oldest  prophets — Amos  and  Hosea. 
He  says,  even :  "  It  is  sufficiently  evident  that  the  cultus  of 
Jehovah,  as  it  existed  in  the  time  of  the  earlier  prophets, 
and  doubtless  long  before,  is  by  no  means  at  variance  with 
the  character  of  Leviticus.  Whatever  judgment  may  be 
formed  of  the  age  of  this  book,  the  opinion  hitherto  enter- 
tained of  the  birth,  growth,  and  maturity  of  the  religion  of 
Israel  will  undergo  no  change."8  In  a  valuable  article 
contributed  to  the  Studien  und  Kritiken  in  1876,  he 
reiterates  these  views,  and  concludes :  "  Accordingly,  we  do 
not  know  what  objection  can  be  made  to  the  earlier  com- 
position of  Leviticus  on  the  ground  of  the  older  prophetical 
writings."4  In  such  statements,  supported  by  reasons 
which  time  has  done  nothing  to  refute,  we  are  far  enougli 
away  from  the  theory  that  nothing  was  known  of  a  divine 
sanction  of  ritual  ordinances  till  after  the  time  of  the  exile. 
To  ourselves,  as  before  said,  it  appears  incredible  that 
no  ordinances  for  religious  worship  should  have  been  given 
to  the  people  by  Moses,  in  sell  ling  the  constitution  of 

1  Wellhausen,  Hint,  of  Israel,  p.  59. 

*  Ibid.  p.  55.     See  below,  p.  303. 

»  P.  75. 

4  Stud,  und  Krii.  1876,  p.  661.     This  important  article  was  written  ten 

Biars  after  the  appearance  of  (irafs  work  (arc  below,  p.  325),  in  criticism  of 
uliiu,  and  from  the  standpoint  that  up  to  that  time  "a  stringent  proof" 
had   not   been  offered  "either  for  or  against"  Unit's  hypothesis  of  tin* 
age  of  Leviticus,  and  that  such  "was  not  to  be  looked  for  in  the  near 
future  "  (p.  644). 


160    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

Israel  If  such  were  given,  they  must,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  have  included  regulations  about  priesthood,  sacrifice, 
purification,  and  much  else.1  This  does  not  prove  the 
existence  of  the  Levitical  ritual  Code ;  but  such  laws,  if 
given,  must  have  covered  a  large  part  of  the  ground  of  that 
Code.  It  does  not  prove  even  that  the  laws  were  written, 
but  it  is  highly  probable  that  they  soon  were.2  If  these 
laws  are  not  incorporated  in  our  present  Levitical  Code,  it 
is  certain  they  are  not  to  be  found  anywhere  else.  We 
shall  be  better  able  to  judge  on  this  point,  when  we  have 
looked  at  some  of  the  more  special  institutions  of  the 
national  worship. 

We  proceed  now,  accordingly,  to  consider  how  it  stands 
with  such  institutions  as  the  ark,  the  tabernacle,  the  priesthood, 
and,  in  connection  with  these,  with  the  unity  of  worship, 
made  by  Wellhausen,  as  we  shall  see,  the  turning-point  of 
his  whole  discussion.3  Graf,  with  his  thesis  of  the  post- 
exilian  origin  of  the  Levitical  Code,  is  the  pioneer  here, 
and  we  are  not  sure  that  the  case  for  the  new  theory,  as 
respects  the  above  institutions,  has  been  more  plausibly 
presented  anywhere  than  it  is  in  his  pages.4  It  is  not 
denied  by  the  Graf  school  that  there  was  an  ark,  a  tent  to 
cover  it,  and  priests  of  some  sort,  from  early  times,  but  it  is 
contended  with  decision  that  these  were  not,  and  could  not 
have  been,  the  ark,  tabernacle,  and  priesthood  of  the 
Levitical  Code.  All  we  read  on  these  subjects  in  the  Priestly 
sections  is  "  unhistorical  fiction"  of  exilic  or  post-exilic 
origin.  Rejecting  hypotheses,  our  duty  will  be  to  turn  the 

1  We  shall  see  below  that  Dillmann,  in  fact,  supposes  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi. 
(mainly)  to  be  a  very  old,  and  in  basis  Mosaic,  code,  which  he  thinks  may 
originally  have  stood  after  Ex.  xxiv.  Cf.  his  JSxod.-Lev.  on  Ex.  xxv.  and 
Lev.  xvii.,  and  see  below,  pp.  328,  376. 

*  See  below,  p.  329.  Dillmann  says  in  the  Preface  to  his  Commentary 
on  Exodus-Leviticus:  "That  the  priesthood  of  the  central  sanctuary 
already  in  ancient  times  wrote  down  their  laws  is  the  most  natural  assump- 
tion in  the  world,  and  can  be  proved  from  A,  C,  D  [=  P,  J,  D] :  that  the  laws 
of  the  priesthood  and  of  divine  service  were  written  down,  not  to  say  made, 
first  of  all  in  the  exile  and  in  Babylon,  where  there  was  no  service  of  God, 
is  contrary  to  common  sense. " 

*Hist.  of  Israel,  p.  368.     See  below,  pp.  173  ff. 

4  On  Graf  and  his  place  in  the  critical  development,  see  next  chapter 
(pp.  199 ff.).  His  principal  work,  Die  Oeschichtlichen  Bucher  des  Allen 
Testaments,  was  published  in  1866.  His  chief  predecessors  were  Vatke  and 
George,  but  their  works  had  produced  little  impression,  and  were  regard«-d  as 
conclusively  refuted.  Cf.  Delitzsch,  Lnthardt's  Zeitschrift,  1880,  pp.  57  ff. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          161 

matter  round  about,  and  try  to  look  at  the  facts  historically. 
This  will  prepare  the  way  for  the  later  critical  inquiry. 

III.  THE  SACRED  ARK 

It  has  been  seen  above  what  the  critics  think  of  the 
original  ark  which  they  allow  to  have  existed.  It  was  a 
sort  of  fetish-chest  in  which  Jehovah,  represented  by  two 
stones,  probably  meteoric,  was  thought  of  as  carried  about ; 
or  it  was  itself  a  fetish.1  This  may  be  met  by  observing 
that,  while  Jehovah's  presence  is  conceived  of  as  connected 
with  the  ark,  the  special  symbol  of  His  presence — the  cloud, 
or  pillar,  or  glory — is  always  distinguished  from  both  ark 
and  sanctuary :  this  in  both  JE  and  P  sections.8  The  cloud, 
or  pillar  of  cloud  and  of  fire,  is  represented  as  above  the 
tabernacle,  or  over  the  people,  or  as  going  before  them  in  their 
journeyings.  Jehovah  descends  in  the  pillar  to  commune 
with  Moses  at  the  tabernacle.  He  dwells  upon  or  between 
the  cherubim.*  His  presence,  therefore,  it  is  perfectly  plain, 
was  not  identified  with  the  ark,  or  with  anything  in  it 

1.  It  is  not  denied,  then,  and  it  is  a  valuable  admission, 
that  there  was  an  ark  of  Jehovah  in  Israel  from  the  times 
of  Moses.  Where  did  it  come  from  ?  The  ark  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  with  the  people  in  Egypt:  we  may 
therefore  conclude  it  to  be  a  Mosaic  institution.  A  first  point 
of  interest  relates  to  the  making  of  the  ark.  The  only 
account  we  have  of  its  construction  is  in  the  Priestly  Code, 
Ex.  xxv.  10  ff. ;  xxvil  1  11'. ;  outside  of  P  the  first  incidental 
notice  is  in  the  important  passage,  Num.  x.  33-36,  "And 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  went  before  them,"  etc.,  where, 
however,  its  existence  is  firmly  assumed.  On  the  critical 
side  it  is  said — indeed,  is  taken  for  granted  as  one  of  the 
things  about  which  "no  doubt"  exists4 — that  originally 
the  JE  narrative  also  must  have  had  an  account  of  the 
making  of  the  ark,  now  displaced  by  that  of  P.6  Let  this 

1  See  abore,  p.  137. 

1  Of.  Ex.  xzxiii.  9  ;  xl.  84-88  ;  Nam.  x.  34  ;  xir.  10-14  ;  xx.  8 ;  Dmt 
xxxi.  15,  etc. 

*  Ex.  XXT.  22  ;  1  Sam.  ir.  4.  etc. 

4  Addis  says  :  "  He  (the  J  writer]  no  doubt  also  mentioned  here  the 
making  of  the  ark,  to  which  he  refers  shortly  [where?]  afterwards." — 11  j-. 
i.  p.  155. 

8  Thus  practically  all  the  critics,  as  Wellhauseo,  Kueuen,  Dillmaan, 
Driver,  Addu,  Carjwnter,  Kennedy,  etc. 

IX 


1 62     THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

be  assumed :  we  discover  from  Deut.  x.  1-5,  which  is  supposed 
to  follow  this  older  account,  that  the  ark  of  the  JE  story 
was  an  ark  made  "  of  acacia  wood,"  and  was  the  repository 
of  the  two  tables  of  the  law,  which  agrees  perfectly  with 
the  history  we  have.  Thus  far,  therefore,  there  is  no  con- 
tradiction. It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  any  emerges  in 
the  further  notices  of  the  nature,  uses,  fortunes,  and 
destination  of  the  ark. 

2.  We  pass  to  the  subsequent  history  of  the  ark,  and  note 
on  this  the  following  interesting  facts.  Its  familiar  name 
is  "the  ark  of  the  covenant."1  It  is  connected  with  the 
presence  of  Jehovah  among  His  people.2  It  goes  before,  or 
accompanies,  the  people  in  their  journeys.8  It  is  invested 
with  the  most  awful  sanctity:  to  touch  it  irreverently  is 
death.4  It  is  taken  charge  of,  and  borne,  by  Levitical 
priests,  or  by  Levites  simply.5  It  is  found,  in  the  days  of 
the  Judges,  at  Bethel,  where  Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar, 
the  son  of  Aaron,  ministers  before  it.6  In  Eli's  days  it  is  in 
the  sanctuary  at  Shiloh.7  It  is  overshadowed  by  the 
cherubim.8  After  its  captivity  among  the  Philistines,  and 
prolonged  sojourn  at  Kirjath-jearim,9  it  is  brought  up  by 
David  with  the  greatest  solemnity  and  the  utmost  re- 
joicings to  Zion,  and  there  lodged  in  a  tent  he  had  pitched 
for  it.10  Finally,  it  is  brought  into  the  temple  of  Solomon, 
when  we  are  told  it  had  nothing  in  it  "  save  the  two  tables 
of  stone,  which  Moses  put  there  at  Horeb." u  Here,  as  it 
stands,  is  a  very  fair  history  of  the  ark  from  pre-exilian 
sources,  and  it  requires  some  ingenuity  to  discover  wherein 
the  ark  of  these  accounts  differs,  in  structure,  character, 
and  uses,  from  the  ark  of  the  law  in  Exodus.  That  ingenuity, 

1  This  name  occurs  in  Num.  x.  83  ;  xiv.  44  ;  Deut.  x.  8  ;  xxxi.  9,  25,  26  ; 
Josh.  iii.  (seven  times)  ;  iv.  7,  9,  18  ;  vi.  6,  8  ;  viii.  33  ;  Judg.  xx.  27  ; 
1  Sam.  iv.  3-5  (see  above,  p.  137) ;  2  Sam.  xv.  24  ;  1  Kings  iii.  15  ;  vi.  19  ; 
viii.  1,  6,  etc.  etc.  In  all  the  cases  in  the  older  history  the  words  "of  the 
covenant "  are  simply  struck  out  by  the  critics.  Cf. ,  e.g. ,  Kuenen ,  Hist,  of  Israel, 
i.  pp.  257-58;  or  Oxford  Hex.  on  Josh,  iii.,  iv.  The  passages  then  read 
"  the  ark  of  Jehovah  "  only.  See  Note  at  end  of  chapter. 

1  Num.  x.  33,  etc. 

s  Num.  x.  33-36  ;  cf.  Ex.  xl.  36,  37 ;  Num.  ix.  15-23  (P).  On  the 
position  cf  the  ark,  see  below,  pp.  168-69. 

4  1  Sam.  vi.  19  ;  2  Sam.  vi.  7. 

8  Josh,  iii.,  iv;  2  Sam.  xv.  24,  29 ;  cf.  Deut.  xxxi.  9,  25. 

6  Judg.  xx.  27,  28.  7  1  Sam.  iii.  3. 

8  1  Sam.  iv.  4 ;  2  Sam.  vi.  2.  »  1  Sam.  vii.  1,  2. 

10  2  Sam  vi.  "  1  Kings  viii.  1-11. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          163 

however,  is  not  wanting.  One  point  of  alleged  contradic- 
tion, viz.,  that  in  JE  the  ark  is  represented  as  borne  at  a 
distance  in  front  of  the  host,  while  in  P  it  is  carried,  with 
the  tabernacle,  in  the  midst  of  the  host,  is  considered  below 
in  connection  with  the  place  of  the  tabernacle.1  For  the  rest, 
the  method  is  always  at  hand,  and  is  freely  resorted  to,  of 
getting  rid  of  inconvenient  testimony  by  the  assumption  of 
interpolation.  This  disposes,  as  noted  above,  of  the  words 
"  the  covenant,"  and  also  of  the  mention  of  the  "  cherubim," s 
and  gets  rid  of  the  notices  of  "  Levites  "  as  bearing  the  ark,  in 
distinction  from  the  priests.  Thus,  e.g.,  Professor  H.  P.  Smith, 
following  Wellhausen,  disposes  of  the  testimony  in  2  Sam.  xv. 
24.  That  passage  reads :  "  And  lo  Zadok  also,  and  all  the 
Levites  that  were  with  him,  bearing  the  ark  of  the  covenant 
of  God."  This  will  not  do,  so  the  comment  is :  "  The  present 
text  inserts  'and  all  the  Levites  with  him.'  But  as  the 
Levites  are  unknown  to  the  Books  of  Samuel  [they  had 
been  mentioned  before  in  1  Sam.  VL  15],  this  is  obviously  a 
late  insertion.  Probably  the  original  was  '  Zadok  and 
Abiathar.'"*  On  this  subject,  it  can  scarcely  be  held  to 
be  a  contradiction  that  in  some  of  the  above  passages  it  is 
the  "priests"  who  bear  the  ark,  while  the  Levitical  law 
•aligns  that  duty  to  the  "  Levites."  The  carrying  of  the 
ark  by  the  Levites  on  ordinary  occasions,  and  as  servants 
of  the  priests,4  does  not  preclude  the  bearing  of  it  by  priests 
on  special  occasions,  as  in  Josh,  iii.,  iv.  It  was  the  priests 
who  were  at  all  times  primarily  responsible  for  its  right 
conveyance.6 

3.  A  point  of  some  importance  in  its  bearings  on  the 
descriptions  of  the  ark  in  the  Priestly  Code,  which,  how- 
ever, we  do  not  remember  having  seen  adverted  to,  is  the 

1  This,  u  will  be  seen  below,  is  a  question  of  some  real  difficulty.  It  is  not 
clear  whether  the  ark  was  always,  or  only  on  special  occasions,  borne  in  front 
of  the  host ;  or  whether  it  was  not  borne  usually  in  front  of  the  tabernacle 
in  midst  of  the  host,  still  with  the  idea  of  leadership.  In  either  case,  as  the 
passages  cited  show,  it  was  the  movement  of  the  ark,  or  of  the  guiding 
pillar,  which  determined  that  of  the  camp. 

*  " It  is  more  than  probable,"  says  Kuenen,  "that  the  cherubim  were 
not  mentioned  by  the  author  him.-elf,  but  were  inserted  by  a  later  writer." — 
Rel.  of  Itrael,  i.  p.  259. 

1  Samutl  ( "  lutcrnat.  Grit.  Com."),  p.  844.  In  defence  of  these  passage* 
(also  in  LXX),  see  Van  Hoonacker,  Le  Saeerdoce  Ltvitique,  p.  199. 

4  Num.  iv.  16,  etc. 

'  Num.  iv.  19.  In  1  Sam.  iv.  4,  Hophni  and  Phinehas  (priests)  an  said  to 
be  "  there  with  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  God  "  (not,  apparently,  its  bearers). 


164    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

relation  of  the  ancient  ark  to  that  of  the  Solomonic  temple. 
It  is  not  denied,  as  we  have  seen,  that  there  was  an  old 
Mosaic  ark ;  but  the  fact  is  perhaps  not  always  sufficiently 
attended  to  that,  according  to  every  testimony  we  have,  it 
was  this  identical  ark  which  was  brought  up  and  deposited 
in  Solomon's  splendid  house.  The  Mosaic  tabernacle,  on 
Graf's  view,  is  a  "  fiction  " — a  "  copy  "  of  the  temple :  it  is 
the  temple  made  "portable,"  and  projected  back  into 
Mosaic  times.  But  the  ark,  at  all  events,  was  not  a  new 
thing  in  the  temple.  It  was  the  old  ark  that  was  brought 
into  it ; *  the  same  old  ark  that  can  be  traced  back  to  the 
times  of  the  Judges,  and  of  Moses,  and  had  experienced  so 
many  vicissitudes.  It  was  an  ark,  therefore,  which  con- 
tinued to  exist,  and  whose  character  and  structure  could  be 
verified,  down  to  late  historical  times.  It  follows  that,  if 
the  ark  of  the  law  is  a  "  copy  "  of  the  ark  of  the  temple,  it 
must,  in  its  general  character,  form,  and  structure,  be  pretty 
much  a  "copy,"  likewise,  of  the  real  ark  of  the  pre- 
Solomonic  age.  Exilian  priests  would  hardly  invent  an  ark 
totally  different  from  that  which  had  perished  within  quite 
recent  memory. 

Another  reflection  is  suggested  by  the  pre-Solomonic 
history  of  the  ark.  No  one  disputes  the  sacredness  of  the 
ark  in  the  eyes  of  the  Israelites.  It  was  in  a  sense  the 
centre  and  core  of  their  religion.  They  had  the  most 
undoubting  belief  in  the  manifestations  of  God's  presence  in 
connection  with  it,  and  in  the  importance  of  its  possession, 
and  of  worship  before  it,  as  a  pledge  of  God's  favour  and 
protection.  Yet  after  its  return  from  the  Philistines,  and 
the  judgment  at  Beth-shemesh,  we  find  this  holiest  of 
objects  taken  to  the  house  of  a  private  Israelite,  Abinadab, 
and  allowed  to  remain  there  till  David's  time,  i.e.,2  during 
the  whole  reign  of  Saul,  guarded  by  this  man's  son ; 
apparently,  therefore,  without  Levitical  ministration, 
neglected  and  almost  forgotten  by  the  people.8  Then  again 

1  1  Kings  viii.  6ff.  "The  ark  was  guarded,"  says  Dr.  Driver,  "till  it 
was  transferred  by  Solomon  to  the  temple."—  Introd.  p.  188. 

9  The  twenty  years  of  1  Sam.  vii.  2  do  not  denote  the  whole  duration  of 
the  ark's  stay  at  Rirjath-jearim,  but  the  period,  apparently,  till  the  time 
of  Samuel's  reformation. 

*  1  Sam.  rii.  1,  2.  Of.  below,  p.  178.  The  ingenious  suggestion  of  Van 
Hoona«-ker  (Le  Sacerdocc,  p.  192)  that  "  Eleazar  his  son"  should  be  "son 
of  Eleazar  "  (a  priest)  is  without  sufficient  warrant. 


H.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          165 

we  find  it  raised  to  highest  honour  by  David  and  Solomon. 
We  ask — Would  it  be  safe  to  argue  from  the  seeming 
neglect,  at  least  intermission  of  religious  use,  of  this  sacred 
object  for  so  long  a  period,  to  the  denial  of  its  earlier  high 
repute,  and  established  place,  in  the  worship  of  the  people  ? 
Or,  if  «o  extraordinary  an  irregularity  must  be  admitted  in 
this  confused  time,  must  we  not,  in  consistency,  admit  the 
likelihood  of  many  more  ? 

IV.  THE  TABERNACLE 

An  initial  difficulty  in  the  Mosaic  account  is  the  richness 
and  splendour  of  the  "  tent  of  meeting,"  said  to  be  reared  by 
command  of  Go<i  in  the  wilderness.  This  of  itself,  however, 
is  not  insuperable.  Neither  the  resources  nor  the  skill  of 
the  people  in  leaving  Egypt  were  so  slender  as  the  critics 
represent,1  and  the  rearing  of  a  sanctuary  was  an  object  for 
which  they  would  strip  themselves  of  their  best  If  the 
ark  was  as  fine  an  object  as  its  description  implies,  we 
should  expect  that  the  tabernacle  made  for  its  reception 
would  have  some  degree  of  splendour  as  well.  Much  more 
radical  is  the  position  now  taken  up  by  the  Graf- 
Wellhausen  critics.  Such  a  tabernacle  as  the  Priestly  Code 
deicribes,  they  tell  us,  never  existed.  The  tent  of  the 
wilderness  is  a  pure  creation  of  the  post-exilian  imagination. 
In  Wellhausen's  language:  "The  temple,  the  focus  to 
which  the  worship  was  concentrated,  and  which  was  not 
built  until  Solomon's  time,  is  by  this  document  regarded 
as  so  indispensable  even  for  the  troubled  days  of  the 
wanderings  before  the  settlement,  that  it  is  made  portable, 
and  in  the  form  of  a  tabernacle  set  up  in  the  very  beginning 
of  things.  For  the  truth  is,  that  the  tabernacle  is  the  copy, 
not  the  prototype,  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem."1  The 
critical  and  other  difficulties  which  inhere  in  such  a 
conception  are  left  over  for  the  present ;  we  look  only  at 
the  facts. 

1.  Our  starting-point  here,  as  before,  is  the  admission  of 
the  critics  that  a  tabernacle  of  tome  sort  did  exist,  as  a 

1  Of.  Knobel,  quoted  by  Dillmann,  Emd.-Lev.  pp.  26S-70. 

1  Hut.  of  Itratl,  pp.  36-37.  In  these  expressions  about  the  sanctuary 
being  "made  portable,"  and  the  tabernacle  being  "the  copy,"  not  the 
prototype,  of  the  temple,  Wollhansen  hot  repeats  Graf,  Gtxkitht.  BOeher, 
pp.  53,  55.  61,  etc. 


1 66    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

covering  for  the  ark  and  a  place  of  meeting  with  Jehovah, 
at  least  as  far  back  as  they  will  allow  the  history  to  go. 
Graf  may  be  quoted  here,  though  his  concessions  are  ampler 
than  those  which  Wellhausen  would  be  disposed  to  make. 
"  The  presence  of  the  ark  in  the  field  (1  Sam.  iv.  3  ff.),"  he 
says,  "  presupposes  also  that  of  a  tent,  of  however  simple  a 
character,  which  might  serve  as  a  protection  and  lodging 
for  the  ark  and  for  the  priests  with  the  sacred  utensils ; 
and  it  lies  likewise  in  the  nature  of  the  case  that  before  this 
tent,  where  sacrifice  was  offered  by  the  priests,  and  the  will 
of  Jehovah  inquired  after,  meetings  and  deliberations  of  the 
host  were  also  held ;  hence  the  tent  was  the  ohel  moed 
(tent  of  meeting)." l  But  then,  it  is  contended,  this  is  not 
the  tabernacle  of  the  Priestly  Code,  and  reference  is  made 
in  proof  to  "  the  tent "  which,  in  Ex.  xxxiii.  7,  Moses  is  said  to 
have  pitched  (K.V.  " used  to  pitch ")  "afar  off"  without  the 
camp,  and  to  have  called  "  the  tent  of  meeting,"  when  as 
yet  the  tabernacle  of  the  law  was  not  erected.  Wellhausen 
goes  further,  and  will  have  it  that  the  pre-Soloinonic 
tabernacle  was  not  a  single  tent  at  all,  but  a  succession  of 
changing  tents,  staying  himself  in  this  contention,  of  all 
authorities  in  the  world,  on  the  Chronicler*  whose  words — 
"  have  gone  from  tent  to  tent,  and  from  one  tabernacle  to 
another " — are  made  to  bear  a  sense  which  that  writer 
assuredly  never  dreamt  of. 

Now  it  is  the  case,  and  is  an  interesting  fact,  that  after 
the  sin  of  the  golden  calf,  before  the  Sinaitic  tabernacle  was 
made,  Moses  is  related  to  have  taken — strictly,  "used  to 
take" — "the  tent,"  and  pitched  it  "without  the  camp, 
afar  off  from  the  camp,"  and  to  have  called  it  "  the  tent 
of  meeting."  The  mention  of  "  the  tent "  comes  in  quite 
abruptly,  and  may  fairly  suggest  that  we  have  here,  as  the 
critics  say,  part  of  an  originally  independent  narrative — the 
same  to  which  also  Num.  xi.  16  ff.,  and  xii.  4ff.  (cf.  Deut. 
xxxi.  14, 15)  belong.  As  it  stands  in  the  context,  however, 

1  Geschicht.  Sucker,  pp.  57-58. 

8 Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  45:  "The  parallel  passage  in  1  Chron.  xviL  5 
correctly  interprets  the  sense "  (cf.  2  Sam.  vii.  6).  How  the  Chronicler 
could  be  supposed  to  say  this,  in  Wellhausen's  sense,  not  only  of  the 
"  tent "  (ohel),  but  of  the  "  tabernacle  "  (mishkan),  is  not  explained.  "  The 
passage  says  no  more,"  remarks  Delitzsch,  "than  that  the  ark  of  Jehovah 
wandered  from  place  to  place,  so  that  He  abode  in  it,  sometimes  here  and 
sometimes  there."— Luthardt's  Zeilschrift,  1880,  p.  63. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          167 

the  impression  distinctly  produced  is,  that  the  withdrawal 
of  the  tent  or  tabernacle  from  the  camp  is  penal  in  character 
(cf.  vers.  3-5 :  "  I  will  not  go  up  in  the  midst  of  thee  "), 
and  that  the  tabernacle  itself  is  a  provisional  one,  meeting 
a  need  till  the  permanent  "  tent  of  meeting  "  is  got  ready. 
The  tenses,  indeed,  imply  usage ;  but  duration  of  usage  is 
limited  by  the  writer's  thought,  and  need  not  cover  more 
than  the  period  of  alienation,  or  at  most  the  interval — the 
greater  part  of  a  year — till  the  erection  of  the  new 
tabernacle.1  The  critics,  however,  will  not  admit  this ;  and, 
comparing  the  passages  above  mentioned,  maintain  that 
there  are  the  clearest  points  of  distinction  between  this  JE 
tent  or  tabernacle  and  that  of  -the  Priestly  Code.  The 
former,  it  is  said,  is  always  represented  as  pitched  without 
the  camp ;  the  latter  is  as  invariably  pitched  in  the  midst  of 
the  camp.  The  one  is  a  place  of  revelation  (Jehovah 
descends  in  the  pillar  to  the  door  of  the  tabernacle) ;  the 
other  is  a  place  of  divine  service  or  worship.  The  one  has 
Joshua  as  its  attendant ;  *  the  other  is  served  by  priests  and 
Levitts.  On  this  last  objection — the  absence  of  Levites — 
it  is  enough  to  remark  that,  at  the  time  referred  to  in  Ex. 
xxxiii,  Levites  had  not  yet  been  appointed  ;  the  ark  itself 
had  not  yet  been  made.  The  other  two  objections  deserve 
more  consideration.  They  rest  on  grounds  which  have  a 
degree  of  plausibility,  though  closer  examination,  we  are 
convinced,  will  bring  out  the  essential  harmony  of  the 
accounts. 

2.  The  first  question  relates  to  the  place  of  the  taber- 
nacle. Is  there  real  contrariety  here  between  the  JE  and 
the  P  accounts  ?  When  we  examine  the  evidence  for  the 
contention  that  all  through  the  wanderings,  in  the  JE 
narrative,  the  place  of  the  tabernacle  was  without  the 
camp— "afar  off" — we  are  struck,  first,  with  its  exceeding 
mcagrcm OOP  It  consists  of  the  two  passages  in  Numbers 
above  referred  to,  concerning  which  it  may  be  observed 
that,  while  their  language,  taken  alone,  will  agree  with  this 
hypothesis,  it  certainly  does  not  necessitate  it.  It  is  not 

1  Cf.  Ex.  «xv.  80  (T.  ;  xl.  1  ff. 

*  Wellhauaen  says:  "Thus  Mows  has  Joshua  with  him  as  his  aditvus, 
who  does  not  guit  the  tent  of  Jehovah." — 7/iX.  of  Isrnel,  p.  130.  Cf. 
Addis  in  loc.,  ilex.  i.  p.  155  :  "The  tent  of  meeting  is  outside  the  camp  ; 
it  is  not  guarded  by  Levites,  much  less  by  the  sons  of  Aarou,  but  fay 
Joshua,  the  '  minister '  of  MOMS  "  Bat  * e  Deut.  xxxi.  9,  etc. 


168    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

conclusive  that  we  are  told  on  one  or  two  occasions  that 
persons  "  went  out "  from  the  camp  to  the  tent,1  or  that  Moses 
"  went  out "  from  the  tent  to  the  people ; 2  for  the  same 
language  would  be  as  appropriately  used  of  going  out  from 
.any  particular  encampment  to  the  open  space  in  the  centre 
/where  the  sanctuary  stood;  just  as  it  is  said  of  Dathan 
and  Abiram  that  they  "  came  out "  and  stood  in  the  door 
of  their  own  tents.8  The  question  requires  to  be  decided 
on  broader  grounds.  Even  in  Ex.  xxxiii.  7,  the  natural 
suggestion  of  the  statement  that  Moses,  in  particular 
circumstances,  took  the  tent — assumed  as  known — and 
pitched  it  "without  the  camp,  afar  off  from  the  camp," 
would  seem  to  be  that  the  original  and  proper  place  of 
the  tent  was  within  the  camp ;  and  there  are  not  wanting 
in  the  narratives  indications  that  this  was  the  real  state 
of  the  case.  Both  in  the  JE  and  the  P  sections  the 
region  outside  the  camp  is  regarded  as  a  region  of 
exclusion  from  Jehovah's  presence ;  it  would  be  passing 
strange  if  His  tabernacle,  surmounted  by  the  cloudy  pillar, 
were  thought  of  as  pitched  "afar  off"  in  this  region.  It 
requires  much  faith,  for  instance,  to  believe  that  when 
Miriam,  smitten  with  leprosy,  was  "  shut  up  outside  the 
camp  seven  days,"*  she  was  nearer  the  tabernacle  of 
Jehovah  than  the  people  who  were  within ;  or  that,  when 
quails  were  sent,  the  tabernacle  was  in  such  a  position  as 
to  be  certainly  smothered  by  them  when  they  fell;6  or 
that,  when  Balaam,  looking  on  Israel,  testified,  "Jehovah 
his  God  is  with  him,  and  the  shout  of  a  king  is  among 
them,"6  the  tabernacle  of  Jehovah  was  really  beheld  by  the 
seer  as  far  apart  from  the  people.  But  there  are  other 
and  more  crucial  JE  passages.  When,  in  particular,  it  is 
declared  in  Num.  xiv.  44  that  "  the  ark  of  the  covenant 

1  Num.  xi.  24-30  ;  xii.  4,  5. 

2  Num.   xi.   24.     Cf.  Strack's  remarks  on  these  passages  in  his  Com- 
mentary, in  loc. 

3  Num.  xvi.  27. 

4  Num.  xii.  14,  15.     It  should  be  noted  that  this  JE  narrative  implies 
the  leprosy  law  of  Lev.  xiii.  (P). 

8  Num.  xi.  31,  32.  Van  Hoonacker,  in  his  Le  Sacerdoce  Ltvitique 
(pp.  145-46),  has  an  ingenious  way  of  explaining  these  passages,  in 
comparison  with  Ex.  xxxiii.  7  (where,  as  he  points  out,  "the  tent"  is 
assumed  as  already  known),  by  the  supposition  of  a  series  of  transpositions 
in  the  narrative  ;  but  we  do  not  feel  this  to  be  justified  or  necessary. 

8  Num.  xxiii.  21.  Balaam,  in  chap.  xxiv.  2,  sees  "  Israel  dwelling 
according  to  their  tribes,"  which  implies  the  orderly  encampment  of  P. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          169 

of  Jehovah,  and  Moses,  departed  not  out  of  the  carap,"  it 
cannot  be  supposed  that  the  ark  was,  before  starting, 
already  outside  of  the  camp — "  afar  off " ;  the  words  imply 
as  plainly  as  may  be  that  its  resting-place  was  within  the 
camp.  When,  again,  Moses  is  related  in  Num.  x.  36  to 
have  said  at  the  resting  of  the  ark,  "  Return,  0  Jehovah, 
to  the  ten  thousands  of  Israel,"1  his  formula  has  hardly 
any  meaning  if  the  ark  did  not  return  from  going  before 
the  people  to  a  resting-place  within  the  camp.  In  the 
same  direction  point  such  allusions  as  "the  cloud  of 
Jehovah  was  over  them  by  day,  when  they  set  forward 
from  the  camp  " 2 — "  and  Thy  cloud  standeth  over  them  8 — 
allusions  which  those  who  adopt  the  hypothesis  we  are 
criticising  think  it  necessary  to  relegate  to  P  or  a  redactor  ;4 
together  with  instances  of  an  immediate  acting,  speaking, 
or  calling  of  Jehovah  from  the  tabernacle6  (were  Moses, 
Aaron,  and  Miriam,  e.g.,  "  afar  off"  when  they  heard  Jehovah 
call  "  suddenly  "  to  them,  as  in  Num.  xii.  4  ?),  or  of  direct 
transactions  with  the  officials  of  the  sanctuary.'  Taken 
together,  these  things  show  that,  while  there  may  be 
divergences  in  the  mode  of  representation,  there  is  no 
essential  disagreement  in  the  accounts  as  to  the  place  of 
the  tabernacle. 

3.  Neither,  when  we  take  the  history  as  a  whole,  does 
there  appear  to  be  any  better  basis  for  the  statement  that 
in  JE  the  tabernacle  is  a  place  of  revelation  only,  whereas 
in  P  it  is  peculiarly  a  place  of  worship.  In  P  also,  as  in 

1  Cf.  Dillmann  and  Strack,  in  loc.  Professor  Gray's  comments  on  this 
VMMg*,  Nam.  z.  38-35,  are  a  good  example  of  the  new  method.  "Here," 
he  says,  "if  we  may  judge  from  so  fragmentary  a  record,  it  [the  arkj  i* 
conceived  as  moving  of  itself  (!)  .  .  .  3S.  Here,  as  in  ver.  33,  the  ark  starts 
of  itself,  and  the  words  that  follow  ['  Rise  np,  O  Jehovah,'  etc.]  may  !>«• 
taken  aa  addressed  to  it.  ...  36.  Such  worda  could  I*  suitably  addressed 
to  the  ark  returning  from  battle  to  its  fixed  sanctuary  .  .  .  after  the 
people  were  settled  in  Canaan.  It  is  less  clearly  suitable  to  the  circum- 
stances of  the  march  through  the  wilderness  :  the  people  overtake  the 
ark,  the  ark  does  not  return  to  them  "  (!) — Number*  ("  Int«r.  Crit.  Com."), 
p.  97.  How  would  Dr.  Gray  apply  his  canon  to  Pa.  cxxxii.  8 1 

*  Num.  x.  84.  '  Num.  xiv.  14. 

4  Thus  Dillmann,  Gray,  the  Oxford  Ilex.,  etc.  (not  Addis).     On  the 

rnd  that  "  £  nowhere  describes  it  [the  pillar]  as  '  over '  it "  [the  tent]— 
thing  to  be  proved — the  Oxford  annotator  arbitrarily  makes  the  won! 
over  in  Num.  xii.  10  bear  a  different  setise  from  what  it  ordinarily  has 
in  this  connection.     The  phrase  is  identical  with  that  in  Ex.  xl.  36  ;  Num. 
ix.  17  (P). 

*  E.g.,  Num.  xu  1,  10,  16  ;  xii.  4.  *  E.g.,  Deut  xxxi.  9,  25,  26. 


i;o    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

JE,  the  tabernacle  is  a  place  of  revelation ;  in  JE,  and  in 
pre-Solomonic  times,  as  in  P,  it  is  a  place  of  worship,  with 
its  altars  and  sacred  furniture,  its  priestly  ministrants,  its 
assemblies  at  the  feasts,  etc.  Only  by  isolating  one  or  two 
special  passages,  in  which  the  aspect  of  revelation  in  JE 
is  prominent,1  can  it  be  made  to  appear  otherwise.  In 
certain  respects  there  is  obvious  resemblance  from  the 
first.  In  P,  as  well  as  in  JE,  the  tabernacle  is  called 
ohel  moed  (tent  of  meeting):2  in  P  this  alternates  with 
the  name  mishkan  (dwelling).  A  curious  fact  here,  and 
one  puzzling  to  the  critics,  is  that  in  certain  sections  of 
P  (Ex.  xxv.-xxvii.  19)  only  mishkan  is  used ;  in  others 
(chaps.  xxviii.-xxxi.)  only  ohel  moed ;  in  others  the  names 
intermingle.3  In  both  JE  and  P  Jehovah  manifests  His 
presence  in  a  cloud  of  fire  ;  *  the  fact  that  in  JE  the  cloud 
is  spoken  of  as  a  "pillar"  is  no  contradiction.  If  in  JE 
Jehovah  descends  in  the  pillar  to  the  door  of  the  tabernacle 
to  speak  with  Moses,  this  mode  of  communication  is  also 
recognised  in  P  ("  At  the  door  of  the  teat  of  meeting  .  .  . 
where  I  will  speak  with  you,"  Ex.  xxix.  42,  43)  ;6  else- 
where Jehovah  speaks  from  between  the  cherubim.6  The 
tabernacle  in  both  JE  and  P  contains  the  ark  of  the 
covenant;  a  Levitical  priesthood  in  its  service  is  implied 
in  the  JE  notices  in  Joshua,7  and  in  Deuteronomy.8  A 
tabernacle  existed,  and  was  set  up  in  Shiloh,  in  Joshua's 
time,  as  Josh,  xviii.  1,  ascribed  to  P,9  declares:  this  re- 
appears under  the  name  "  the  house  of  God  "  in  Shiloh,  in 
Judg.  xviiL  3 1.10  In  this  connection  it  should  not  be 

1  Num.  xi.,  xii. ;  Deut.  xxxi.  14,  15.  These  are  the  only  passages  after 
Ex.  xxxiii.  7-il  :  a  narrow  basis  for  an  induction. 

1  In  JE,  e.g.,  in  Num.  xi.  16 ;  xii.  4  ;  Deut.  xxxi.  14. 

*  Cf.  Oxford  Hex.  ii.  p.  120.  In  consistency  different  authors  ought  to 
be  assumed. 

4  Numbers  and  Deut.  for  JE  ;  in  P,  Ex.  xl.  84-38  ;  Num.  ix.  15-23, 
etc.  It  should  be  noted  that  in  the  narrative  of  the  dedication  of  the 
temple  in  1  Kings  viii.,  vers.  10,  11  are  modelled  directly  on  the  P  passage, 
Ex.  xl.  34-35. 

8  Cf.  Oxford  Hex.  ii.  p.  120.  '  Ex.  xxv.  22;  Num.  vii.  89. 

7  Josh,  iii.-vi.  8  Deut.  x.  6,  8  ;  xxxi.  9,  25,  26. 

9  On    the    critical    analysis    here,   cf.  Van    Hoonacker,   Le  Sacerdoce, 
p.  177. 

10  Cf.  Judg.  xix.  18,  "  to  the  house  of  Jehovah,"  where,  however,  the 
LXX  has  ' '  my  (the  man's  own)  house  "  (R.  V.  marg. ).  The  ' '  house  of  God  " 
in  Judg.  xx.  26  is  more  correctly  "Bethel,"  where  either  the  tabernacle 
was  for  a  time  (cf.  chap.  ii.  1,  in  LXX),  or  where  the  ark  was  temporarily 
taken  for  the  war. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          171 

overlooked  that  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (JE)  already 
provides  for  offerings  being  brought  to  "the  house  of 
Jehovah  thy  God."1  At  the  sanctuary  at  Shiloh  an  annual 
feast,  described  as  "a  (or  the)  feast  of  Jehovah,"1  is  held, 
which  is  most  naturally  identified  with  one  of  the  three 
prescribed  feasts8  (cf.  1  Sam.  i.  3).  The  notices  of  the 
ark,4  again,  and  the  custom  of  "inquiring  of  Jehovah,"6 
attest  the  existence  of  a  stated  priesthood,  of  sacrifices — the 
offering  of  "  burnt  offerings  and  peace  offerings  before 
Jehovah  "  8 — and  of  the  priestly  ephod.  In  face  of  all  this, 
Wellhausen's  assertion  that  in  the  Book  of  Judges  "  there 
is  no  mention  of  the  tabernacle  ...  it  is  only  in  pre- 
paration, it  has  not  yet  appeared,"7  can  only  excite 
astonishment 

When  we  pass  to  the  Books  of  Samuel,  we  get  fresh  and 
valuable  light  on  the  tabernacle,  and  its  place  in  the 
religion  of  Israel.  At  the  end  of  the  period  of  the  Judges,- 
it  is  still  at  Shiloh,  with  Eli,  of  the  house  of  Aaron,  as  its 
principal  priest.  It  bears  the  old  name — "  the  tent  of 
meeting" — to  which  no  suspicion  need  attach;8  contains 
the  ark  with  its  cherubim;'  is  the  centre  of  worship  for 
"  all  Israel " ; 10  in  its  furniture  and  ritual  suggests  the  pre- 
scriptions of  the  Levitical  Code.  "  The  lamp  of  God " 
burns,  as  directed,  all  night;11  from  the  later  incidental 
mention  of  the  shewbread,  and  of  the  regulations  connected 
with  it,  at  Nob,12  we  may  infer  the  presence  of  the  table 

1  Ex.  zxiii.  19.  It  is  one  of  the  astounding  statements  in  Wellhausen 
tli at  "  house  of  God  "  always  means  "  bouse  of  an  image." — Hist,  of  Israel, 
p.  ISO. 

I  Judg.  xxi.  19. 

*  According  to  Bertheau,  the  word  hay  is  almost  without  exception  used 
of  the  three  great  tc&st*.—£xey.  Handb.  p.  278. 

4  Judg.  xx.  27,  28. 

*  Judg.  i  1  ;  xx.  18,  23,  28. 

•  Judg.  xx.  26. 

7  Hist,  of  Israel.  Graf  also  says  that  there  is  no  mention  of  "  a  sacred 
tent "  in  the  time  of  the  Judges,  but  remarks  that  this  is  not  to  be  wondered 
at,  an  the  ark  of  the  covenant  is  also  not  mentioned  (p.  58).  The  critics 
in  both  case*  reach  their  results  by  rejecting  what  does  not  please  them. 
"  The  house  of  God  "  and  "  the  ark  of  the  covenant "  are  both  mentioned 
in  Judges. 

•  See  next  page.  •  1  Sam.  iv.  4  ;  cf.  abuve,  p.  137. 
»•  1  Sam.  ii.  14,  19;  iii.  19,  21. 

11 1  Sam.  iii.  3 ;  cf.  Ex.  xxvii.  20-21. 

II  1  Sam.  XXL     Dr.  Driver  objects  that  these  allusions  do  not  prove  that 
the  institutions    "were  observed  unth  th»  precut  formaiitu*  vmcribed 
in  P." — JntrocL  p.  142.     How  much  does  one  expect  in  a  historical  allusion  t 


172    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

with  the  shewbread.  Elkanah  goes  up  yearly  to  worship,1 
and  his  sacrifice  for  his  vow  is  according  to  the  law.2  In 
1  Sam.  iL  22,  there  is  allusion  to  "  the  women  who  did 
service  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting  " — the  only  other 
mention  of  these  women  being  in  Ex.  xxxviii.  8.  (P).  The 
genuineness  of  this  important  passage,  the  second  half  of 
which,  for  reasons  that  may  be  guessed,  is  omitted  in  the 
LXX  (Vat.  Cod.),  has  been  disputed,  but,  it  seems  to  us, 
without  sufficient  reason.3 

Thus  far  the  resemblance  of  "the  house  of  God"  in 
Shiloh  to  the  tabernacle  of  the  law  must  be  admitted.  But 
objections,  on  the  other  hand,  are  urged,  which,  it  is  thought, 
disprove  the  identification.4  It  is  pointed  out  that  the 
sanctuary  is  described,  not  as  a  tent,  but  as  a  "temple" 
(hekal),  with  doors  and  posts,  which  implies  a  permanent 
structure;6  that  Samuel  is  represented  as  sleeping  in  the 
room  where  the  ark  of  God  was ; 6  that  the  sons  of  Eli  were 
within  their  Levitical  rights  in  demanding  uncooked 
flesh,  etc. 7  But  there  is  needed  here  not  a  little  forcing  of 
the  text  to  make  out  a  case  in  favour  of  the  critics.  "  Every- 
where else  in  1  Sam.  i.-iii.,"  says  Wellhausen,  arguing  against 
the  name  ohel  moed,  "the  sanctuary  of  Shiloh  is  called 
hekal " : 8  the  "  everywhere  else  "  being  simply  twice.  And 
it  does  not  prove  his  point.  Whatever  structures  or 
supports  may  have  grown  up  about  the  sanctuary  (for  safety, 
stability,  protection,  convenience)  during  its  century-long 
stay  at  Shiloh — and  from  its  age  such  were  to  be  expected 
— it  was  still  essentially,  as  2  Sam.  vii.  6  shows,  "  a  tent  and 
a  tabernacle,"  nor  did  Israelitish  tradition  ever  know  of 

When  the  Chronicler  expands,  it  is  taken  as  a  proof  of  non -historicity.  See 
below,  p.  300. 

1  1  Sam.  i.  3,  7.     Professor  W.  R.  Smith  allows  that  the  yearly  feasts 
were  observed  (O.T.  in  J.  (7.,  p.  345). 

2  1  Sam.  i.  21,  25  ;  cf.  Lev.  vii.  16  ;  Num.  xv.  8-10. 

•The  name  ohel  moed  is,  as  we  have  seen,  an  old,  well-attested  name 
of  the  tabernacle  (cf.  Graf,  p.  58),  and  is  found  again,  in  both  Heb.  and 
LXX,  in  1  Kings  viii.  4.  As  regards  the  women,  even  on  the  supposition, 
"which  we  do  not  accept,  of  a  post-exilian  coni}>osition  of  Ex.  xxxviii.,  it  is 
inconceivable  that  there  should  occur  thit  singfe  mention  of  the  women  at 
the  tabernacle  in  the  Code,  if  there  was  not  old,  well-established  tradition 
behind  it. 

4  Cf.  in  Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  W.  R.  Smith,  and  the  critics  generally. 
See  the  very  dogmatic  statements  in  O.T.  in  J.  C.,  pp.  269-70. 

5  1  Sam.  i.  9  ;  iii.  3.  6  1  Sam.  iii.  3. 

7  1  Sam.  ii.  15.  8  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  41  (italics  ours). 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          173 

any  other  kind  of  habitation  of  Jehovah.  The  further  tn\] 
position  that  Samuel  slept  literally  in  the  shrine  of  the  at  I 
is,  from  the  point  of  view  of  an  Israelite,  an  outrage  on  all 
probability;  neither  does  the  language  of  the  text  cornpH 
any  such  meaning.1  Samuel  and  Eli  slept  in  contiguous 
chambers  of  some  lodgment  connected  with  the  sanctuary, 
such  as  may  be  presumed  to  have  been  provided  for  the 
priests  and  others  engaged  in  its  service.  The  sin  of  the  sons 
of  Eli  consisted  in  their  greed  and  violence,  and  in  the  appro- 
priating of  such  portions  as  their  "  flesh-hooks  "  laid  hold  of, 
before  the  fat  was  burned  on  the  altar,  as  the  law  required.1 
The  Levitical  dues  are  presupposed :  not  contradicted. 

What  remains  to  be  said  on  the  tabernacle  may  be  brieflx 
summed  up.  Ark  and  tabernacle,  as  above  noted,  weu 
separated  during  the  long  period  that  the  former  was  ai 
Kirjath-jearim.  When  David  brought  the  ark  to  Zion, 
the  tabernacle,  probably  then  old  and  frail,  and  unfitted  for 
removal,  was  at  Gibeon.8  Thence  it  was  brought  up  with 
its  vessels,  and  preserved,  apparently,  as  a  precious  relic,  in 
Solomon's  temple.4  The  supposition  that  the  ohd  moed 
of  1  Kings  viii.  4  was  not  this  historic  tabernacle,  but  the 
temporary  tent  set  up  by  David  on  Zion,  is  contradicted  by 
the  name,6  which  is  not  given  to  that  tent,  by  the  mention 
of  the  vessels,  and  by  the  unlikelihood  that  a  temporary 
tent  would  have  such  honour  put  upon  it,  while  one  can 
well  understand  why  the  old  tabernacle  should. 

V.  THE  UNITY  OP  THE  SANCTUARY 

We  now  approach  a  subject  of  cardinal  importance — 
probably  the  one  of  most  importance — iu  this  discussion : 
the  unity  of  thf  sanctuary,  ami  the  conflict  alleged  to  exist 
on  the  centralisation  of  the  cultus  between  Deuteronomy  and 
the  earlier  law  and  practice  in  Israel.  The  point  of  the 

1  DeliUzch  says  :  "  That  ho  should  sleep  betide  the  ark  would  certainly 
be  a  colossal  contradiction  of  the  law,  but  Wellhaosen  reads  this  into  the 
text."— Luthardt's  Zeitxhrit't,  1880,  |>.  232.  Of.  Wellhausea,  p.  ISO.  On 
the  alleged  priesthood  of  Samuel,  tee  below,  pp.  189-90. 

»  Lev.  iii.  1  ff. ;  TU.  28  ff. 

*  1    Kings  iii.    4 ;  viii.    4  ;  cf.   1   Chron.   xvi.   39,   40 ;  2  Chron.   L   3. 
According  to  1  Chron.  xvi.  39,  Zadok  ministered  at  Gil-eon. 

4  1  Kings  viii.  4  ;  2  Chron.  v.  5.  If  this  be  admitted,  then  the  tabernacle, 
as  well  as  the  ark,  was  there  for  inspection  till  late  times. 

•  Cf.  Delitiach,  as  above,  p.  63. 


174    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

critical  position  on  this  head,  briefly,  is,  that,  while  in 
Deut.  xii. — placed  in  or  near  the  age  of  Josiah — we  have 
the  law  of  a  central  sanctuary  at  which  alone  sacrifices  are 
lawful,  in  the  earlier  history  we  have  not  only  no  trace  of 
this  idea  of  a  central  sanctuary,  in  which  all  lawful  worship 
is  concentrated,  but,  in  the  absolute  freedom  of  worship 
that  prevailed,  convincing  proof  that  such  a  law  was  neither 
observed  nor  known.  The  older  law  in  Ex.  xx.  24,  on 
which  the  people  acted  in  that  earlier  time,  granted,  it  is 
alleged,  unrestricted  liberty  of  worship ;  as  Professor  W.  R 
Smith  interprets  it — "  Jehovah  promises  to  meet  with  His 
people  and  bless  them  at  the  altars  of  earth  or  unhewn 
stone  which  stood  in  all  corners  of  the  land,  on  every  spot 
where  Jehovah  has  set  a  memorial  of  His  name."1  The 
'idea  of  the  central  sanctuary  was,  it  is  contended,  the  out- 
come of  the  great  prophetic  movement  which  resulted  in 
the  reign  of  Josiah  in  the  suppression  of  the  bamoth,  or 
"  high  places,"  till  then  regarded  as  lawful  The  relation 
of  the  Deuteronomic  to  the  Priestly  Code — assumed  to  be 
still  later — on  this  subject  is  thus  expressed  by  Wellhausen : 
"  In  that  book  (Deuteronomy)  the  unity  of  the  cultus  is 
commanded;  in  the  Priestly  Code  it  is  presupposed.  .  .  . 
In  the  one  case  we  have,  so  to  speak,  only  the  idea  as  it 
exists  in  the  mind  of  the  lawgiver,  but  making  no  claim  to 
be  realised  till  a  much  later  date ;  in  the  other,  the  Mosaic 
idea  has  acquired  also  a  Mosaic  embodiment,  with  which  it 
entered  the  world  at  the  very  first."2  The  case,  however, 
is  not  nearly  so  strong  as  these  statements  would  imply, 
as  many  critical  writers  are  coming  themselves  to  perceive.3 
Eeserving,  as  before,  what  is  to  be  said  on  the  purely  critical 
aspects,  we  proceed  to  look  at  the  subject  in  its  historical 
relations. 

The  Priestly  Code  may  be  left  out  of  consideration  at 
this  stage,  for  it  will  scarcely  be  denied  that,  if  there  was  a 
sacrificial  system  in  the  wilderness  at  all,  it  would  be  a 
system  centralised  in  the  sanctuary,  as  the  Code  represents. 
The  question  turns  then,  really,  on  the  compatibility  of  the 
law  in  Deuteronomy  with  the  enactment  in  Ex.  xx.  24,  and 

1  Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  109.  J  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  35,  37. 

3  This  point  is  emphasised  in  an  interesting  lecture  by  Dr.  S.  A.  Fries, 
delivered  to  a  Scientific  Congress  at  Stockholm  in  1897,  entitled  Modcrne 
Vorstellungen  der  Geschichie  Israels  (Modern- Representations  of  the  History 
of  Israel).  See  below,  pp.  176,  278. 


IL  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          175 

with  the  later  practice.  And  the  first  condition  of  a  satis- 
factory treatment  lies,  as  the  lawyers  would  say,  in  a  proper 
adjustment  of  the  issues. 

1.  We  do  well  to  begin  by  looking  at  the  precise  form, 
of  the  fundamental  law  in  Ex.  xx.  24  itself.  The  passage 
reads:  "An  altar  of  earth  thou  shalt  make  to  Me,  and 
shalt  sacrifice  thereon  thy  burnt  offerings,  and  thy  peace 
offerings,  thy  sheep  and  thine  oxen :  in  every  place  where  I 
record  My  name,  I  will  come  to  thee  and  I  will  bless  thee." 
The  law  is  general  in  form,  but  it  must  be  observed  that 
there  is  nothing  in  it  warranting  the  worship  "  at  the  altars 
of  earth  and  unhewn  stones  in  all  corners  of  the  land," 
which  Professor  W.  R  Smith  reads  into  its  terms.  It  is/ 
addressed  to  the  nation,  not  to  the  individual ;  and  it  does! 
not  speak  of  "  altars,"  but  only  of  "  an  altar."  It  is  not  a' 
law  in  the  least  giving  unrestricted  liberty  of  worship ;  its 
scope,  rather,  is  carefully  limited  by  the  clause, "  in  every 
place  where  I  record  My  name."1  It  would  be  unduly 
narrowing  the  force  of  this  law  to  confine  it,  with  some,  to 
the  successive  places  where  the  sanctuary  was  set  up  during 
the  wilderness  wanderings  and  in  Canaan ;  it  must  at  least 
include  all  places  sanctified  to  their  recipients  by  special 
appearances  or  revelations  of  God.  This  fully  explains, 
and  legitimises,  e.g.t  the  cases  of  Gideon,"*  of  Manoah,8 
of  David,4  of  Solomon*  of  Elijah.'  Neither  is  there  any- 
thing here  that  conflicts  with  Deuteronomy.  The  law  in 
Deut.  xii.  gives  the  general  rule  of  worship  at  the  central 
sanctuary,  but  is  not  to  be  understood  as  denying  that 
circumstances  might  arise  in  which,  under  proper  divine 
authority,  exceptional  sacrifices  might  be  offered.  The 
clearest  proof  of  this  is  that  Deuteronomy  itself  gives 
directions  for  the  building  of  an  altar  on  Mount  Ebal, 
precisely  in  the  manner  of  Ex.  xx.  25.T 

1  Professor  W.  R.  Smith,  replying  to  Dr.  Wm.  H.  Green,  seems  to  insist 
that  these  words  can  only  bear  the  meaning,  "  in  all  places"  in  the  sense  of 
a  number  of  co-existent  sanctuaries. — Prophets,  p.  894.  On  this  see  Note  B 
on  the  Force  of  Ex.  xz.  24. 

*  Judg.  vi.  25,  26.  '  Judg.  xiii.  16. 

*  2  Sain.  xxiv.  18.  '1  King!)  iii.  4,  5. 

*  1  Kings  xviii.  81. 

1  Dent  xxrii.  5,  6. — Van  Hoonacker  advocates  the  view  that  there  were 
two  systems  of  worship — a  private  and  a  public — and  supposes  that  the  law 
in  Exodus  refers  to  the  former,  and  the  law  in  Deuteronomy  to  the  latter. 
SM  his  ingenious  discussion  in  his  IA  Litu  du  CulU  dam  la  Legislation 


176    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

2.  With  this,  in  the  next  place,  must  be  taken  the  fact, 
which  the  critics  too  much  ignore,  that,  even  in  the  earliest 
period,  the  rule  and  ideal  in  Israel  is  that  of  a  central 
sanctuary,  as  the  legitimate  place  of  worship.  It  has  just 
been  seen  that  the  fundamental  law  itself  speaks  of  "an 
altar,"  not  of  "altars,"  and  no  countenance  is  given  any- 
where to  a  multitude  of  co-existing  altar.8.1  It  is  not 
questioned  that  the  Priestly  C9de — the  only  Code  we  possess 
for  the  wilderness  —  "presupposes"  unity  of  worship; 
neither,  in  the  history,  is  there  trace  of  any  other  than 
centralised  worship  of  a  lawful  kind  during  the  wanderings. 
The  Book  of  the  Covenant — the  same  which  contains  the 
law  of  the  altar — has  plainly  the  same  ideal  of  the  unity  of 
the  sanctuary.  It  takes  for  granted  "  the  house  of  Jehovah 
thy  God,"  and  requires  that  three  times  in  the  year  all  males 
shall  present  themselves  there  before  Jehovah.2  The 
idolatrous  shrines  in  Canaan  are  to  be  broken  down.8  It  is 
in  keeping  with  this,  that,  in  prospect  of  entering  Canaan, 
Deuteronomy  relaxes  the  law  requiring  the  slaying  of  all 
oxen,  lambs,  and  goats  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle,*  and 
permits  the  slaying  of  animals  for  food  at  home.6  In  the 
Book  of  Joshua,  the  incident  of  the  altar  Ed — the  narrative 
of  which,  in  a  way  perplexing  to  the  critics,  combines 
peculiarities  of  P  and  JE 6 — is  a  striking  testimony  to  the 
hold  which  this  idea  of  the  one  altar  had  upon  the  tribes. 
We  have  already  seen  that  the  tabernacle  at  Shiloh  was  the 
recognised  centre  of  worship  for  "  all  Israel "  in  the  days  of 

rituelle  des  Hfortux,  and  in  his  Le  Sacerdoce  Lfriitique  (pp.  5  ff.).  Similar 
views  are  advocated  by  Fries,  referred  to  above  (p.  174),  in  his  work,  Die 
Zentralisation  des  israelitischen  Kuitus.  The  hypothesis  is  probably  not 
without  its  elements  of  truth,  and  would  explain  certain  anomalies,  but  we 
have  not  felt  it  necessary  to  adopt  it. 

1  Ex.  xx.  24  ;  xxL  14.  Cf.  Robertson's  Early  Religion,  pp.  405-13. 
"  It  is  remarkable,"  says  Professor  Robertson,  "  that  we  do  not  find  in  all  the 
Old  Testament  such  a  divine  utterance  as  'My  altars'  ;  and  only  twice 
does  the  expression  'Thy  altars,'  addressed  to  God,  occur.  It  is  found  in 
Elijah's  complaint,  which  refers  to  Northern  Israel,  at  a  time  when  the 
legitimate  worship  at  Jerusalem  was  excluded  ;  and  in  Ps.  Ixxxiv.,  where 
it  again  occurs  [on  the  critical  view,  post-exilian],  no  inference  can  be  drawn 
from  it.  On  the  other  hand,  Hosea  says  distinctly,  '  Ephraim  hath  multi- 
plied altars  to  sin '  (Hos.  viii.  11)  "  (p.  112). 

»  Ex.  xxiii.  14-17.  8  Ex.  xxiii.  24. 

4  Lev.  xvii.  1  ff.  The  object  of  the  law  is  to  prevent  promiscuous  sacri- 
ficing to  demons  (vers.  5,  8). 

8  Deut.  xii.  20.     See  below,  po.  276,  314. 

*  Josh.  xxii.  9-34.     On  the  criticism,  cf.  Oxf.  Hex.,  Driver,  etc. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          177 

Eli.1  In  Judges,  legitimate  sacrifices  are  offered  at  the 
sanctuary,2  or  before  the  ark,8  or  where  God  has  "  recorded 
His  name  "  in  a  special  revelation  ; 4  all  others  are  condemned 
as  transgressions.6  The  period  succeeding  the  captivity  of 
the  ark  is  considered  below. 

3.  When  we  turn,  next,  to  Deuteronomy,  we  discover 
another  fact  of  great  importance  in  this  connection,  viz., 
that  there  also,  as  Wellhausen  says,  the  unity  of  the  cultus 
is  an  "  idea "  which  makes  "  no  claim  to  be  realised  till  a 
much  later  date."6  The  law  in  Deut.  xii.,  in  other  words, 
is  not  given  as  a  law  intended  to  come  into  perfect  operation 
from  the  first.  It  has  just  been  seen  that  the  principle  of; 
centralisation  of  worship  was  involved  in  the  Mosaic  system 
from  the  commencement,  but  the  realisation  of  the  idea 
was,  and  in  the  nature  of  the  case  could  only  be,  gradual. 
The  law  of  Deuteronomy,  in  agreement  with  this,  bears  on 
its  face  that  it  was  not  intended  to  be  put  strictly  in 
force  till  certain  important  conditions  had  been  fulfilled — 
conditions  which,  owing  to  the  disobedience  of  the  people, 
who,  during  the  time  of  the  Judges,  so  often  put  back  the 
clock  of  their  own  history,  were  not  fulfilled  till  as  late  as 
the  days  of  David  and  Solomon.  The  law  reads  thus: 
"  When  ye  go  over  Jordan,  and  dwell  in  the  land  which 
Jehovah  your  God  causeth  you  to  inherit,  and  He  giveth 
you  rest  from  all  your  enemies  round  about,  so  that  ye 
dwell  in  safety :  then  shall  it  come  to  pass  that  the  place 
which  Jehovah  your  God  shall  choose  to  cause  His  name  to 
dwell  there,"  etc.7  In  point  of  fact,  the  unsettled  state  of 
things  here  described  lasted  till  the  reign  of  David.8 

1  See  above,  p.  171.     Of.  Jer.  vii.  12.  »  Jndg.  xxi.  19. 

•Judg.  xx.  26,  27  ;  xxi.  2-4  (tor  "  house  of  God"  read  "Bethel"). 

4  Gidfon,  Manoah,  as  above,  p.  175.  Cf.  Jndg.  ii.  1-5.  It  has  been 
inferred,  and  is  not  improbable,  that  Gideon's  altar  in  Judg.  vi.  24,  to 
which  he  gave  the  name  "  Jehovah-Shalom,"  was  a  monumental  altar,  like 
the  altar  "  Ed  "  in  Josh.  xxii.  This  would  explain  why  he  was  required  next 
day  to  build  a  new  altar  beside  it  (ver.  26). 

•  Judg.  viii.  27,  x  vii.  5,  6,  etc.     Dr.  W.   R.  Smith  appears  to  assume 
that  the   phrase   "before  Jehovah"  (Judg.  xi.    11,    etc.)  always  implies 
sacrifice.     That,  however,  ia  not  so      Cf.  Gen.  xxvii.  7  ;  Ex.  vi.  12,  80  ; 
Deut  iv.  10  ;  ix.  25  ;  1  Sam.  xxiii.  18.     See  Graf,  GetcHcht.  faeher,  p.  68. 

•  See  above,  p.  174.  7  Deut  xii.  10,  11. 

•  2  Sam.  vii.  1.     Pr^tssor  W.  R.  Smith  allows  that  Deuteronomy  "puts 
the  case  as  if  the  introduction  of  a  strictly  unified  cultus  was  to  be  deferred 
till  the  peaceful  occupation  of  Palestine  was  accomplished." — O.T.  in  J.  C., 
p.  272.     Where  then  is  the  contradiction  T 

12 


178    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

Accordingly,  in  1  Kings  iii.  2,  it  is  not  urged  that  the 
law  did  not  exist,  or  that  it  was  not  known,  but 
the  excuse  given  for  irregularities  is  that  "  there  was 
no  house  built  for  the  name  of  Jehovah  until  these 
days."1  This  principle  alone  solves  many  difficulties,  and 
goes  a  long  way  to  bring  the  history  and  the  law  into 
harmony. 

4.  This  leads,  finally,  to  the  remark  that,  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  these  laws,  large  allowance  needs  to  be  made 
'for  the  irregularities  incident  to  times  of  political  confusion 
and  religious  declension.  It  is  not  fair  to  plead,  as  contra- 
dictory of  the  law,  the  falling  back  on  local  sanctuaries  in 
periods  of  great  national  and  religious  disorganisation,  as 
when  the  land  was  in  possession  of  enemies,  or  when  the 
ark  was  in  captivity,  or  separated  from  the  tabernacle,  or 
when  the  kingdom  was  divided,  and  the  state-worship  in 
the  Northern  division  was  idolatrous.  In  particular,  the 
period  following  the  rejection  of  Eli  and  his  sons  was  one  of 
unusual  complications,  during  which  Samuel's  own  person 
would  seem  to  have  been  the  chief  religious  centre  of  the 
nation.2  It  is  here  that  the  critical  case  finds  its  strongest 
support,  and  there  are  undoubted  difficulties.  How  could  it 
be  otherwise,  after  "  the  capture  of  the  ark,  the  fall  of 
Shiloh,  and  the  extension  of  the  Philistine  power  into  the 
heart  of  Mount  Ephraim  "  ? 3  We  are  reminded,  however, 
that  even  after  the  ark  had  been  brought  back,  and  settled 
in  the  house  of  Abinadab,  Samuel  made  no  attempt  to  remove 
it  to  Nob,  but  "continued  to  sacrifice  at  a  variety  of  shrines  "  * 
— Bethel,  Gilgal,  Mizpah,  Eamah.  It  is  a  sweeping  and 
unwarranted  inference  to  draw  from  this  that  "Samuel 
did  not  know  of  a  systematic  and  exclusive  system  of 
sacrificial  ritual  confined  to  the  sanctuary  of  the  ark."6 
Samuel  evidently  knew  something  of  it  as  long  as  Shiloh 
stood ;  for  we  read  of  no  attempt  then  to  go  about  the  shrines 

1  Cf.  1  Kings  viii.  29  ;  ix.  3  ;  2  Chron.  vi.  5,  6. 

*  Shiloh  had  probably  fallen.     Cf.  Jer.  vii.  12,  xxvi.  6,  with  subsequent 
mention  of  Nob,  1  Sam.  xxi. 
'O.T.  inJ.  C.,  p.  271. 

4  Ibid.  p.  272.     Professor  Smith,  as  usual,  overshoots  the  mark  in  his 
statement  that  "  Eleazar  ben  Abinadab  was  consecrated  its  priest."     There 
is  no  mention  of  a  "priest"  in  1  Sam.  vii.  1.     Eleazar  was  sanctified   for 
the  custody  of  the  ark.     Samuel's  apparent  neglect  of  the  ark   has  to  be 
accounted  for  on  any  theory  (see  above,  p.  164). 

5  Ib id.  p.  274. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          179 

sacrificing.1  The  ark  and  Shiloh  had  been  rejected ;  the 
former  had  been  taken  to  Kirjath-jearim  under  judgment 
of  God ;  Israel  felt  itself  in  a  manner  under  bereavement, 
and  "  all  the  house  of  Israel  lamented  after  Jehovah."2  The 
age  was  truly,  as  Professor  Smith  says  "  is  generally  argued," 
"  one  of  religious  interregnum  " ; 3  are  we,  in  such  circum- 
stances, to  judge  Samuel  by  the  law  of  an  orderly  and 
settled  time  ?  He  fell  back  naturally,  as  even  the  law  in 
Deuteronomy  permitted  him  to  do,  on  local  sanctuaries 
until  such  time  as  Jehovah  would  give  the  people  rest. 
The  law  had  its  place ;  but  even  under  the  law,  "  the  letter 
killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life;4  and  in  no  age  were 
prophetically-minded  men  the  slaves  of  the  mere  letter  of 
the  commandment  to  the  degree  that  the  critics  suppose.' 
Samuel  acted  with  a  measure  of  freedom,  as  his  circumstances 
demanded;  and  writers  who  suppose  that  priests  and 
prophets  were  perpetually  engaged  in  changing  and  modi- 
fying laws  believed  to  be  divine  should  be  the  last  to 
challenge  his  right  to  do  so. 

5.  When  all  is  said,  it  is  plain  from  the  statement  in 
the  Book  of  Kings  that,  in  the  beginning  of  Solomon's 
reign,  there  was  a  widespread  resort  of  the  people  tojrigh 
places  for  worship,  and  that  even  the  establishment  of 
Soldftron's  great  temple,  with  its  powerful  centralising 
influence,  was  not  effectual  to  check  this  tendency.  The 
compiler  of  Kings  looks  on  worship  at  "  high  places  "  before 
the  temple  was  founded  as  irregular,  but  excusable;9  after 
that  it  is  condemned.  The  history  of  these  "  high  places " 
has  yet  to  be  written  in  a  fairer  spirit  than  is  generally 
manifested  in  notices  of  them.  Much  obscurity,  in  reality, 
rests  upon  them.  In  Judges  the  word  does  not  occur,  and 
the  defections  described  are  mostly  of  the  nature  of  worship 
at  the  Canaanitish  shrines  of  Baal  and  Ashtoreth.7  The  few 
allusions  in  Samuel  are  connected  with  Samuel's  own  city 

1  The  statement  that  Samuel  regularly  sacrificed  at  all  the  plaom  men- 
tioned is  an  importation  into  the  text  The  special  mention  of  his  building 
an  altar  at  Ratnah  (1  Sam.  vii.  17)  would  suggest  that  he  did  not.  Professor 
Smith's  list  of  "  sanctuaries  "  needs  a  good  deal  of  sifting. 

•  1  Sam.  vii.  2.  »  0.  T.  in  J.C.,  p.  272.  4  2  Cor.  ili.  «. 

*  See  Note  C  on  Freedom  under  the  Law.     Cf.  Nam.  z.  16-20  ;  1  8am. 
xr.  22  ;  xxi.  1-6 ;  2  Chron.  xxix.  34  ;  xxx.  17,  19. 

'  1  Kings  iii.  2,  3. 

7  Allusions  to  Canaanitish  "high  place*"  are  found  in  Lev.  xxvi.  30 ; 
Num.  xxi.  28;  xxii.  41  ;  xxxiii.  52. 


i8o    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

of  Eamah,  and  with  the  residence  of  the  band  of  prophets 
at  Gibeah : l  elsewhere  in  Samuel  they  are  unnoticed.  It 
may  be  inferred  from  the  toleration  accorded  to  it  that  the 
greater  part  of  what  worship  there  was  at  "  high  places " 
prior  to  the  founding  of  the  temple  was  directed  to 
Jehovah;  afterwards,  partly  through  Solomon's  own  evil 
example,2  idolatry  found  entrance,  and  rapidly  spread. 
What  the  "  high  places  "  became  in  the  Northern  Kingdom, 
latterly  in  Judah  also,  we  know  from  the  prophets.  It 
is,  however,  a  perversion  of  the  facts  to  speak  of  the 
prophets  as  ever  sanctioning,  or  approving  of,  this  style  of 
worship.  If  it  is  replied  that  it  is  idolatrous  worship  which 
the  prophets  so  strongly  reprobate,  not  worship  at  the  "  high 
places"  as  such,  it  may  be  pointed  out  that  they  never 
make  such  a  distinction,  or  use  language  which  would 
suggest  the  acceptableness  of  the  bamoth  worship  in  any 
form.8  That  Elijah  mourned  the  breaking  down  of  the 
altars  of  Jehovah  in  Northern  Israel  is  readily  explicable 
from  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  that  kingdom.  To 
Amos  and  Hosea,  Micah  and  Isaiah,  not  less  than  to 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  the  one  legitimate  sanctuary  is  that 
of  Zion  at  Jerusalem.* 

The  conclusion  we  reach  on  this  subject  of  the  unity  of 
worship  is,  that  the  history  is  consistent  with  itself,  provided 
we  accept  its  own  premises,  and  do  not  insist  on  forcing  on 
it  an  alien  theory  of  religious  development.  The  reforma- 
tions of  Hezekiah  and  Josiah  then  fall  into  their  proper 
places,  without  the  necessity  of  assuming  the  invention  of 
ad  hoc  "  programmes." 

VI.  THE  AARONIC  PRIESTHOOD  AND  THE  LEVITES 

Ark  and  tabernacle  imply  a  priesthood,  and  the  notices 
already  cited  from  Joshua,  Judges,  1  Samuel,  and  Deuter- 
onomy, abundantly  show  that  from  the  days  of  Moses  such 

1  1  Sam.  ix.,  x.  *  1  Kings  xi.  7,  8. 

1  Dr.  W.  H.  Green  says:  "The  people  are  never  told  that  they  may 
sacrifice  on  the  high  hills  and  under  green  trees,  or  at  Bethel  and  Gilgal  and 
Beenheba,  if  only  they  sacrifice  to  the  Lord  alone,  and  in  a  proper  manner. 
They  are  never  told  that  God  will  be  pleased  with  the  erection  of  numerous 
altars,  provided  the  service  upon  them  is  rightly  conducted." — Moses  and 
the  Prophets,  p.  157. 

4  Cf.  Amos  L  2 ;  Isa.  ii.  2  ;  Mic.  iv.  2  ;  Hos.  iii.  5.  See  Robertson, 
Early  Eel.  p.  405. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          181 

a  priesthood  existed,  and  that  it  was  LevUical.  But  was  it 
Aaronic  1  And  was  there  from  early  times  such  a  dis- 
tinction between  priests  and  Levitts  as  the  Priestly  Code 
represents  ? 

1.  It  is  a  fundamental  contention  of  the  new  school  that  i 
a  distinctively  Aaronic  priesthood  was  unknown  before  the 
exile.  Till  Ezekiel,  in  his  sketch  of  the  new  temple  arrange- 
ments (chaps,  xl.-xlviii.),  initiated  a  distinction  between 
Zadokite  priests  and  other  Levites — a  theory  considered  in 
a  later  chapter1 — there  was  no  distinction  in  principle 
between  priests  and  Levites :  all  Levites  are  possible  priestsJ 
In  particular,  a  high  priest  of  Aaronic  descent  wag 
unknown.  The  question  of  the  relation  of  the  priests  to 
other  Levites  is  considered  below ;  we  inquire  at  present 
whether  it  is  the  case  that  the  earlier  books  give  no  traces 
of  an  Aaronic  priesthood.  We  aflirm  that  they  do,  and 
believe  that  the  proof  of  this  can  only  be  set  aside  by  the 
usual  circle  method  of  first  assuming  that  the  Aaronic  priest- 
hood is  late,  then,  on  that  ground,  disallowing  the  passages 
which  imply  it 

Wellhausen  has1  some  wonderful  constructive  history  on 
this  subject,  on  which  we  need  not  dwell.  The  Levites  of 
history,  he  affirms,  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  old  tribe  of 
Levi :  in  the  J  narrative  in  Exodus,  Aaron  was  not  origin- 
ally mentioned  at  all ;  it  is  the  line  of  Moses,  not  of  Aaron, 
that  gives  rise  to  the  clerical  guild.8  As  an  instance  of  the 
critical  procedure,  we  may  take  the  case  of  the  high  priest. 
It  is,  as  just  said,  an  essential  part  of  the  Wellhausen  theory 
that  this  functionary  is  a  creation  of  the  exile.  He  is,  we 
are  told,  still  "unknown  even  to  EzekieL" 8  Unfortunately 
for  the  theory,  the  high  priest  is  expressly  mentioned  in 
at  least  four  places  in  2  Kings,  viz.,  in  chaps,  xil  10,  xxii. 
4,  8,  xxiii.  4* — the  last  two  chapters  being  those  relied 
on  as  furnishing  one  of  the  main  pillars  of  the  critical 
theory,  the  finding  of  "  the  book  of  the  law  "  in  the  reign  of 

1  8e«  below.  Chap.  IX. 

*  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  142-43.     "Akron,"  he  says,  "was  not  originally 
present  in  J,  bat  owed  his  introduction  to  the  redactor  who  combined  J  and 
£  into  JE."    Precisely  the  opposite  view  is  taken  by  Dillmann,  Exod.-L*e. 
p.  437.     See  also  Kuenen  below. 

•  Ibid.  pp.  148-49. 

4  It  occurs  earlier  in  2  Sam.  XT.  27,  if  Wellhausen 'a  amended  reading  of 
that  text  is  accepted. 


1 82    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

Josiah.  The  texts  are  sustained  by  the  parallel  passages  in 
Chronicles  and  by  the  LXX.  What  is  to  be  done  with 
them  ?  They  are  simply  struck  out  as  interpolations,  though 
it  is  unaccountable  why  a  redactor  should  have  inserted 
them  in  just  those  places,  when  so  many  more  invited  his 
attention.1 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  let  the  history  speak  for  itself, 
we  get  such  notices  as  these,  which  are  sufficiently  unam- 
biguous. Deut.  x.  6,  attributed  by  the  critics  to  E,2  informs 
us  that,  after  Aaron's  death,  "  Eleazar  his  son  ministered  in 
the  priest's  office  in  his  stead."3  Josh.  xxiv.  33  carries 
this  a  step  further  by  narrating  the  death  of  Eleazar,  the 
son  of  Aaron,  and  his  burial  in  the  hill  of  Phinehas,  his 
son.  This  is  continued  in  Judg.  xx.  27,  28,  where  we 
read  that  "  Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron, 
stood  before  it  [the  ark]  in  these  days."  From  some  cause 
unexplained,  the  high  priesthood  became  transferred  from 
the  line  of  Eleazar  to  that  of  Ithamar,  and  in  the  opening 
of  1  Samuel,  Eli,  of  this  younger  branch,4  is  found  in  office. 
For  the  sins  of  his  sons  it  is  announced  to  Eli  that  his 
house  shall  be  deprived  of  its  pre-eminence.5  This  took 
place  in  the  reign  of  Solomon,  when  Abiathar  was  deposed,8 
and  Zadok,  of  the  older  line,  obtained  the  sole  high  priest- 
hood.7 Thus  far  the  case  is  exactly  that  described  in  the 
words  of  the  "  man  of  God "  to  Eli  in  1  Sam.  ii.  27,  28 : 
"  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  Did  I  reveal  myself  unto  the  house  of 
thy  father,  when  they  were  in  bondage  to  Pharaoh's  house  ? 
And  did  I  choose  him  out  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  to  be 

1  Graf  does  not  challenge  the  earlier  mention  of  the  "high  priest" 
(Geschicht.  £iicher,  p.  4,  etc.).  Delitzsch  (Zcitschrift,  1880,  p.  228); 
Dillmann  (Num.-Jos.  p.  645)  ;  Baudissin  (Diet,  of  Bible,  iv.  p.  73) ;  Van 
Hoonacker,  etc.,  defend  the  passages.  Kautzsch  removes  2  Kings  xii.  10  as 
a  gloss,  but  lets  the  others  stand.  See  below,  p.  306.  Cf.  Professor  H.  P. 
Smith's  treatment  of  the  Levites  in  Samuel,  above,  p.  163. 

a  Thus  Oxf.  Hex.,  Addis,  etc. 

*  Van  Hoonacker  draws  attention  to  the  harmony  of  JE  and  P  in  passing 
by  Nadab  and  Abihu  ;  see  below,  p.  354. 

4  Thus  1  Chron.  xxiv.  3,  but  in  1  Sam.  ii.  27,  28  also,  Eli  is  assumed  to 
be  of  the  house  of  Aaron.  Wellhausen's  idea  that  in  this  passage  Moses, 
not  Aaron,  is  intended  scarcely  deserves  notice.  Cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  0.  T.  in 
J.  C.,  p.  268. 

8  1  Sam.  ii.  27-36.  8  1  Kings  ii.  26,  27. 

7  1  Kings  ii.  35.  Owing  to  the  political  division  in  the  reign  of 
David  there  was  for  a  time  a  double  priesthood.  On  Wellhansen's  denial 
of  the  Aaronite  descent  of  Zadok,  see  Note  D  on  the  Genealogy  of 
Zadok. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          183 

My  priest,  to  go  up  unto  Mine  altar,  to  burn  incense,  to 
wear  an  ephod  before  Me  ? " l  In  using  here  the  term 
"  high  priesthood,"  we  do  not  forget  that  it  is  held  that  the 
high  priest  is  an  exilian  creation.  But  is  that  BO  ?  It  has 
just  been  pointed  out  that  the  title  is  repeatedly  used  in  the 
history  of  the  kings.  How,  in  fact,  can  we  otherwise 
express  the  undoubted  position  of  supremacy  or  dignity 
held  by  priests  like  Eleazar,  Phinehas,  Eli,  Abiathar, 
Zadok  ?  But  there  is  another  point  of  much  interest.  If 
the  high  priesthood  was  a  creation  of  the  exile,  we  should 
expect  that  the  title  would  be  one  frequently  met  with  in 
the  Levitical  Code — at  least  more  frequently  than  else- 
where. Yet  it  occurs  there  only  three  times  altogether — 
twice  in  Num.  xxxv.  (vers.  25,  28),  and  once  in  Lev.  xxi.  10 
— the  last  a  passage  which  many  take  to  be  very  old.8  The 
term  ordinarily  used  in  the  Code  is  simply  "  the  priest." 

The  priesthood  was  Aaronic,  but  was  it  exclusively  so; 
or  even  exclusively  Levitical?  This  is  contested,  but 
without  real  force,  on  the  ground  of  certain  notices  in  the 
historical  books,  as  where  the  king  is  represented  as  taking 
a  lead  in  religious  celebrations,  otlering  sacrifices,  blessing 
the  people,8  etc.,  or  where  David's  sons  and  others  are 
spoken  of  as  "  priests." 4  A  peculiar  place  is  accorded, 
certainly,  to  the  king,  as  representative  of  Jehovah,  in  the 
arrangements  and  conduct  of  worship,6  but  this  as  much  in 
Chronicles  and  Ezekiel8  as  in  the  Books  of  Samuel  or 
Kings.  Nor  is  the  king  permitted  to  usurp  functions 
strictly  sacerdotal.7  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  Solomon 
offered  with  his  own  hand  the  22,000  oxen  and  120,000 
sheep  mentioned  in  1  Kings  viii.  63,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 

1  Kuenen  differs  from  Wellhausen  in  allowing  in  his  Religion  of  Israel 
a  Levitical  and  originally  Aaronic  priesthood.  "  Levi  was  one  of  the 
twelve  tribes  from  the  first  .  .  .  Moses  and  Aaron  were  Levit-s  ;  Aaron's 
family  discharges  the  priestly  office  at  the  common  sanctuary,''  etc. — ii. 
p.  302.  BaixlisMii  argues  for  an  Aaronic  priesthood  at  least  older  than 
Joeiah't  reform. — Diet,  of  Bible,  iv.  p.  89. 

1  On  this  subject  see  more  fully  below,  Chap.  IX.  Cf.  also  Delitzsch, 
Luttiardt's  Zeitschrift,  1880,  p.  228. 

'  David,  2  Sam.  vi.  17,  18  ;  Solomon,  1  Kings  iii.  4  ;  viii.  62-64. 

4  2  Sam.  viii.  18  (B.V.)  ;  xx.  26  (R.  V.)  ;  1  Kings  iv.  5  (R.  V.}. 

'  See  the  admirable  remarks  on  this  in  Van  Hoonacker,  Le  Saeerdoce, 
pp.  256  ff. 

•  1  Chron.  XT.  27  ;  xvi.  2  ;  2  Chron.  vi.  8,  12  ff. ;  vii.  4  ff.,  etc.  ; 
Ezek.  xliv.  3  ;  xlv.  7,  16,  17,  22,  etc. 

7  Cf.  the  judgment  on  Uzziah,  2  Chron.  xxvi.  16  ff. ;  ef.  2  Kings  xv.  6. 


1 84    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

priests  mentioned  in  vers.  3,  6,  1 0 ; 1  or  that  David,  earlier, 
slew  for  himself  the  numerous  offerings  of  2  Sam.  vi.  17,  18, 
from  which  "  a  portion  "  was  given  to  the  whole  multitude  (also 
with  his  own  hand  ?).  The  priesthood  of  the  sons  of  David, 
however  that  difficult  passage  and  related  texts  are  to  be 
understood,2  was  evidently  something  different  from  the 
ordinary  service  of  the  altar,  and  cannot  outweigh  the  very 
full  testimony  to  the  Levitical  character  of  the  latter. 

2.  This  brings  us  to  the  second  question — that  of  the 
relations  of  priests  and  Levites.  The  subject  will  come  up 
at  an  after  stage,  and  we  need  not  do  more  here  than  inquire 
whether  the  representation  of  a  special  order  of  Aaronic 
priests,  in  distinction  from  other  Levites,  is  really,  as 
alleged,  in  conflict  with  Deuteronomy,  and  with  the  facts  of 
the  earlier  history.  The  general  position  of  critical  writers 
is  that  the  view  of  the  priesthood  in  the  Levitical  Code  is 
irreconcilable  with  the  representation  in  Deuteronomy,  and 
with  the  earlier  practice.  In  the  Code  a  strong  distinction 
is  made  between  "the  sons  of  Aaron,"  who  are  the  only 
lawful  priests,  and  the  ordinary  Levites,  who  are  servants 
of  the  sanctuary.  In  Deuteronomy,  it  is  held,  this  distinc- 
tion has  no  place.  The  tribe  of  Levi  as  a  whole  is  the 
priestly  tribe.  Aa  Professor  W.  R  Smith  puts  it: 
"  Deuteronomy  knows  no  Levites  who  cannot  be  priests, 
and  no  priests  who  are  not  Levites.  The  two  ideas  are 
identical." 8  The  phraseology  in  this  book,  accordingly,  is, 
not  "sons  of  Aaron,"  but  "sons  of  Levi."  It  speaks  of 
"  the  priests  the  Levites,"  not  of  "  priests  and  Levites." 
This  also,  it  is  pointed  out,  is  the  phraseology  of  the  older  his- 
torical books — so  far  as  not  revised.  The  distinction  between 
"  priests  "  and  "  Levites  "  is  held  to  be  due  to  a  later  degrada- 
tion of  priests  of  the  "  high  places,"  as  sketched  by  EzekieL* 

1  Wellhausen  says  that  doubtless  Solomon  with  his  own  hands  offered 
the  "first"  sacrifice  (Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  133),  on  which  Van  Hoonacker 
remarks:  "If  the  21,999  oxen  that  remained  can  be  said  to  be  offered  by 
Solomon,  when  in  reality  they  have  been  offered  by  others  in  his  name, 
the  first  may  have  been  so  also  ;  the  text  knows  nothing  of  an  offering  of 
the  first  "  (p.  259). 

*  Cf.  the  disctia«»ion  in  Van  Hoonacker,  pp.  268  ff.,  and  see  Note  E  on 
David  s  Sons  as  Priests.  On  other  questions  in  the  historical  books  bearing 
ou  the  priesthood,  see  pp.  358,  363  ff.,  388  below. 

*O.T.  inJ.  C.,  p.  360. 

4  See  below,  Chap.  IX.  p.  315  ff.  The  older  theory  was  that  Deuteronomy 
implies  an  elevation  of  the  Levites  from  their  original  lower  status,  and 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          185 

What  is  true  in  this  contention  is  to  be  frankly  acknow- 
ledged.  The  difference  in  point  of  view  and  mode  of  speech 
in  Deuteronomy  must  be  apparent  to  every  reader ;  and  it 
may  at  once  be  conceded  to  an  able  writer  on  the  subject  * 
that,  if  we  had  only  Deuteronomy,  we  should  never  be  able 
to  arrive  at  a  knowledge  of  the  sharp  division  of  the  tribe 
of  Levi  into  the  superior  and  subordinate  orders  with  which 
the  Levitical  law  makes  us  acquainted.  But  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  distinction  is  not  there,  and  is  not  pre- 
supposed throughout. 

(1)  We  do  well,  in  the  first  place,  to  look  with  some 
closeness  into  the  phraseology  on  which  so  much — practically 
the  whole  case — is  based.  When  this  is  done,  we  discover 
that  the  phenomena  are  not  quite  so  simple  as  the  above 
statement  would  suggest.  The  expression  "the  priests  the 
Levites,"  occurring  in  Deut.  xvii.  9,  18,  xviii.  1,  xxiv.  8, 
xxvii.  9 — not  earlier  in  the  book,— of  itself,  it  will  be 
allowed,  decides  nothing:  it  means  simply  "the  Levitical 
priests."  It  is  not  found,  indeed,  in  the  Priestly  Code ;  but 
as  little  is  the  other  expression,  "priests  and  Levites." 
That  is  peculiar  to  the  later  books,1  and  even  in  Chronicles 
is  sometimes  interchanged  with  "  the  priests  the  Levites."  8 
The  Book  of  Joshua,  likewise,  has  "  the  priests  the 
Levites":4  never  "priests  and  Levites."  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Priestly  Writer  occasionally  uses  "Levites,"  as 
in  Deuteronomy,  to  cover  both  priests  and  Levites : 5  this  is 
the  case  also  in  Chronicles.'  Finally,  it  is  true  that  "  sons 
of  Aaron"  is  not  used  in  Deuteronomy  to  describe  the 
priests,  though  there  is  the  recognition  of  the  Aaronic  high 
priest.  But  it  is  very  noticeable  that,  even  in  the  Levitical 

the  late  date  of  the  book  was  argued  for  on  the  ground  that  it  most  have 
taken  a  long  time  to  bring  this  change  about  The  newer  criticism  gives 
up  the  premises,  but  retains  the  conclusion. 

1  Van  Hoonacker,  Le  Sacerdoce,  p.  170.  The  theory  of  this  writer  is, 
that  the  distinction  existed,  but  in  popular  usage  the  name  "  priests"  came 
to  be  applied  to  all  Levites,  whether  of  the  higher  or  lower  grade  (of. 
Dillmanu  on  Deut.  xviii.  1).  The  theory,  while  containing  suggestive 
elements,  doe*  not  seem  to  us  in  this  form  tenable. 

1  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah  ;  once  in  1  Kings  viii.  4,  where  the  parallel 
passage  in  2  Chron.  v.  5  has  "  the  priests  the  Levitee." 

•  2  Chron.  v.  5  ;  xxiii.  18  ;  xxx.  27. 
4  Josh.  iii.  ff.  (or  "priests"  simply). 

•  E.g. ,  Num.  xxxv.  2,  6,  8  ;  Josh.  xiv.  4  ;  xxi.  8  (cf.  Van  Hoonacker). 

•  1  Chron.  zri  4,  37  ;  2  Chron.  xxix.  6  fl.    In  Malachi  also  (chap.  iii.  8) 
the  priests  are  "the  sons  of  Levi." 


X 

1 36    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

Code,  "sons  of  Aaron"  is  by  no  means  the  only,  or  uni- 
versal, designation  for  the  priests;  there  are  considerable 
sections  of  the  Code  in  which  it  either  does  not  occur  at 
all,  or  occurs  only  sparingly.1  It  is,  moreover,  chiefly  in  the 
laws  and  narratives  of  the  earlier  part  of  the  wilderness 
sojourn  that  this  usage  is  found ;  it  is  not  characteristic  of 
the  later  chapters  of  Numbers.  Nor  can  this  change  from 
a  narrower  to  a  more  general  designation,  on  the  assumption 
of  the  truth  of  the  history,  be  regarded  as  strange.  At  first 
the  priests,  "  the  sons  of  Aaron,"  stood  out  from  the  people 
with  sharp  distinctness  as  alone  invested  with  sacred  office. 
The  case  was  greatly  altered  after  the  separation  of  the 
tribe  of  Levi,2  when  the  designation  "  sons  of  Aaron  "  seems 
to  have  been  gradually  dropped  fur  another  identifying  the 
priests  more  directly  with  their  tribe.3  Priests  and  Levites 
had  more  in  common  with  each  other  than  either  class  had 
with  the  general  body  of  the  people;  and,  besides,  the 
priests  were  Levites.  The  rise  of  such  a  designation  as  "  the 
priests  the  Levites  "  is  therefore  quite  natural,  and  the  view 
in  Deuteronomy  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  as,  collectively,  a 
priestly  tribe,  is  entirely  in  keeping  with  the  situation  in 
which  the  discourses  are  supposed  to  have  been  delivered. 
To  the  popular  eye,  the  tribe  of  Levi  stood  apart,  forming, 
as  a  whole,  one  sacred  body,  engaged  in  ministering  in  holy 
things  to  God. 

(2)  It  does  not  surprise  us,  then,  to  find  in  Deuteronomy 
the  functions  of  the  priestly  ministry — even  to  the  "  Urim  and 
Thummim,"  which  was  the  peculiar  prerogative  of  the  high 
priest — ascribed  to  the  tribe  of  Levi  as  a  whole.4  The  question 
of  real  importance  is — Does  the  book  contain  any  indication  of 
such  a  distinction  as  we  have  nevertheless  assumed  to  exist 
between  the  different  orders  in  this  tribe,  or  does  it  exclude 
such  distinction  ?  We  believe  there  is  evidence  of  such  dis- 
tinction ;  the  newer  critics  deny  it.5  The  question  belongs 
more  properly  to  the  discussion  of  Deuteronomy,6  but,  in  the 

1  For  details  see  Kittel,  Hist,  of  ffebs.  i.  p.  120. 

2  Num.  i.  47  ff. ;  iii.  5  ff. ;  viii.  5  ff.,  etc. 

*  After  Numbers  the  phrase  occurs  only  in  Josh,  xxi.,  where  discrimina- 
tion is  necessary  in  the  appointment  of  the  cities. 

4  Deut.  x.  8  ;  xxxiii.  8. 

6  Dillmann,  Delitzsch,  Kittel,  etc.,  Van  Hoonacker  also  from  his  own 
point  of  view,  hold  that  distinctions  are  not  excluded. 

•  See  below,  Chap.  VIII. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          187 

interest  of  the  history,  we  may  be  permitted  thus  far  to  antici- 
pate. We  would  draw  attention  first,  then,  to  the  fact,  that  < 
in  Deuteronomy  the  terms  "  priest "  and  "  Levite  "  are,  after 
all,  not  quite  synonymous.  There  are  "  the  priests  the 
Levites,"  but  there  are  also  "  Levitcs  "  who  are  not  priests. 
Even  allowing  them  to  be  "  possible  "  priests,  though  we  do 
not  believe  this  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  book,  they  have 
still  to  be  distinguished  from  those  who,  in  the  sense  of  the 
writer,  are  actual  priests.  It  is  a  perfectly  unwarranted 
assumption  that,  wherever  the  term  Levite  is  used  we 
have  a  synonym  for  priest.  A  distinction  is  already  in- 
dicated, and  the  fact  of  at  least  certain  gradations  within 
the  tribe  established,  by  the  statement  in  chap.  x.  6  that 
"  Aaron  died,  and  Eleazar  his  son  ministered  in  the  priest's 
office  in  his  stead."1  The  clearest  indication,  however,  is 
in  chap,  xviii.  1-8,  where  an  obvious  distinction  is  made 
between  the  "  priest "  serving  at  the  sanctuary  (vers.  3-5), 
and  the  "  Levite  "  not  thus  serving2  (vers.  6-8) ;  the  only  in- 
telligible reason  for  the  more  general  designation  being, 
either  that  ordinary  non-priestly  Levites  are  meant,  or  at 
least  that  they  are  intended  to  be  included.  It  is  a  reading 
into  the  text  what  is  not  there  to  assert  that  every 
"  Levite  "  going  up  to  the  sanctuary  is  a  "  possible  "  priest 
in  the  stricter  sense.  This  rules  the  meaning  to  be 
attached  to  the  opening  sentence :  "  The  priests  the  Levites, 
all  the  tribe  of  Levi."8  The  second  designation  includes, 
the  first :  in  apposition  it  cannot  be,  since,  in  the  writer's 
sense,  all  Levites  are  not  actual  priests.  To  us  it  seems 
most  evident  that  when  he  speaks  of  "  the  priests  the 
Levites,"  he  has  a  definite  class  in  view,  and  by  no  means 
the  whole  body  of  the  tribe.4  This  view  of  the  passage, 

1  Of.  chap,  zxxiii.  8.  To  what  again  can  the  separation  in  chap.  x.  8 
refer,  if  not  to  the  betting  aitart  of  the  eons  of  Aaron,  aud  afterwards  of 
the  whole  tribe  of  Levi,  recorded  in  the  P  sections  of  the  history  t  Critics 
suppose  an  omitted  narrative  of  this  separation  in  JE  (cf.  Driver,  Deut. 
p.  121). 

*  Thus,  e.g.,  Dillmann,  yum. -Jos.,  in  loc.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that 
it  is  only  in  the  few  pSMSgx  above  cited  that  priests  are  mentioned  at  all. 

'  Chap,  xviii.  1. 

4  Dr.  Driver  refers  to  the  frequency  of  explanatory  appositions  in 
Deuteronomy,  and  gives  examples  (Devi.  p.  214).  The  case  seems  rather 
analogous  to  those  in  which  tie  lawgiver  expand*  his  original  statement  I- 
enlarging  additions;  e.g.,  "Ye  shall  eat  ...  ye  and  your  household  " 
(chap.  xii.  7) ;  "  Ye  shall  rejoice  ...  ye,  ami  your  sons,  and  your 
daughters,"  etc.  etc.  (chap.  xii.  12)  ;  cf.  chap.  xii.  18  ;  xv.  11,  etc. 


1 88    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM— 

we  are  aware,  the  critical  school  meets  with  a  direct 
negative,  assigning  as  a  reason  that  the  terms  used  in 
ver.  7  to  describe  the  Levites'  services  ("  to  minister  in 
the  name  of  Jehovah,"  "  to  stand  before  Jehovah ")  are 
those  regularly  used  of  priestly  duties.  We  believe  this  is 
far  from  being  really  the  case ;  but  the  question  is  a  little 
intricate,  and  had  better  be  discussed  apart.1 

(3)  A  word  may  be  said  before  leaving  the  subject  on 
the  difficulty  arising  from  the  representations  in  Deuter- 
onomy of  the  dispersed  and  needy  condition  of  the  Levites. 
The  objection  is  urged  that,  instead  of  being  furnished  with 
cities  and  pasturages,  and  enjoying  an  independent  income 
from  tithes,  as  the  Priestly  Code  provides,  the  Levites 
appear  in  this  book  as  homeless  and  dependent,  wandering 
from  place  to  place,  and  glad  to  be  invited,  with  the 
stranger,  the  widow,  and  the  fatherless,  to  share  in 
charitable  feasts.2  Here,  in  the  first  place,  it  must  be 
remarked  that  the  legal  provision  is  not  ignored,  but  is, 
on  the  other  hand,  expressly  alluded  to  in  chap.  xviiL  1,  2 
(cf.  chap.  x.  9),  "  And  they  shall  have  no  inheritance  among 
their  brethren;  Jehovah  is  their  inheritance,  as  He  hath 
spoken  to  them,"  where  the  reference  seems  unmistakable 
to  the  law  in  Num.  xviii.  20,  23,  24.  Dillmann  says : 
"  The  corresponding  law  stands  in  Num.  xviii." 3  But, 
waiving  this,  may  we  not  suggest  that,  if  a  time  is  sought 
when  these  exhortations  to  care  for  the  Levite  would  be 
suitable,  no  time  is  so  fit  as  that  when  they  are  supposed 
to  have  been  delivered,  before  the  tithe-laws  had  come  into 
regular  operation, — when  in  truth  there  was  little  or 
nothing  to  tithe,— and  when  the  Levites  would  be  largely 
dependent  on  the  hospitality  of  individuals.  The  Levites 
were  dependent  then,  and  might  from  very  obvious  causes 

1  See  Appendix  to  Chapter — "  Priests  and  Levites."  Cf.  also  the  case  of 
Samuel,  considered  below,  pp.  189-90. 

3  Deut.  xii.  12,  19  ;  xvi.  11,  etc. 

1  Xum.-Jos.,  in  loc.  Dr.  Driver  argnes  against  this  on  the  ground  that 
in  Num.  xviii.  20  "the  promise  is  made  expressly  to  the  priests  (Aaron) 
alone,  as  distinguished  from  the  Levites  (vers.  21-24),  whose  '  inheritance '  is 
specified  separately  (ver.  24) ;  here  it  is  given  to  the  whole  tribe  without 
distinction  ' — Deut.  p.  125  (on  chap.  x.  9).  But  surely  it  is  obvious  that  the 
whole  passage  in  Numbers  (xviii.  20-24)  goes  together,  and  that  the 
principal  part  of  the  "inheritance  "  of  the  priests  is  the  tenth  of  the  tithe 
they  are  to  receive  from  the  Levites  (ver.  26).  Let  the  reader  compare  the 
passages  for  himself. 


II.  RELIGION  AND  INSTITUTIONS          189 

come  to  be  dependent  again.  Their  state  would  not  be 
greatly  bettered  in  the  unsettled  times  of  the  conquest.1 
Nothing  could  be  more  appropriate  in  itself,  better  adapted 
to  create  kindly  sympathies  between  Levites  and  people, 
or  more  likely  to  avert  neglect  of  the  tribe  by  the  with- 
holding of  their  just  dues,  than  the  perpetuation  of  these 
primitive  hospitalities.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  no 
tribunal  existed  to  enforce  payment  of  the  tithes :  all 
depended  on  the  conscientiousness  of  the  individual  payer. 
It  is  easy  to  see  that  an  income  of  this  kind  was  in  the 
highest  degree  precarious,  and  that,  in  times  of  religious 
declension,  the  body  of  the  Levites  would  be  reduced  to 
great  straits.  The  Levites  no  doubt  suffered  severely  in 
the  days  of  the  Judges,  and  under  bad  kings ;  under  good 
kings,  like  David,  and  Solomon,  and  Hezekiah,  the  order, 
we  may  believe,  experienced  considerable  revivals.  At 
other  times  it  sank  in  the  general  corruption,  and  Levites 
were  content  to  earn  a  doubtful  livelihood  by  irregular 
ministrations  at  the  "  high  places."  There  is  no  evidence 
we  know  of  that  their  condition  in  the  later  days  of  the 
kingdom  was  so  deplorably  destitute  as  the  critics  represent. 
(4)  It  will  be  seen  later  how  little  can  be  inferred  from 
the  general  silence  of  the  history  about  the  Levitea ;  *  yet 
that  silence,  as  has  already  been  hinted,  is  not  altogether 
unbroken.8  Two  instances,  at  least,  of  mention  occur  in 
1  Sam.  vi.  15,  and  2  Sam.  xv.  24;  perhaps  also  the  presence 
of  Levites  may  be  inferred  where  Hophni  and  Phinehas  are 
spoken  of  as  "with  the  ark  of  Jehovah."4  A  case  of 
special  interest  is  that  of  the  youthful  Samuel,  who  is 
described  as  "ministering  unto,"  or  "before"  Jehovah  at 
Shiloh*  though  his  duties  were  the  subordinate  ones 
of  the  Levite."  The  words  "ministered  before  Eli"  also 
show  that  this  was  his  position.7  The  attempt,  on  the 
other  hand,  sometimes  made  to  prove  Samuel  to  be  a  priest 

1  Cf.  Konig,  art.  "Judges."  Diet,  of  BibU,  ii.  p.  816  :  "  Further,  we  MW  a 
Levito  wandering  about,  reiuly  to  settle  down  wherever  he  found  office  and 
bread  (Jndg.  xvii.  8  If.  ;  xviii.  19  ff  ;  zix.  1).  This  situation  of  the  member* 
of  the  tribe  of  Levi  was  an  actual  one  as  long  as  a  number  of  the  Levitical 
cities  were  not  yet  conquered  [Kunig  accepts  the  historicity  of  these],  snrh 
as  Ge/er,  and  those  remnrks  of  the  Book  of  Judges  would  have  pow«me<l  no 
probability  if  tln-v  had  proceeded  from  a  pi-riod  when  Jeroboam  selected 
priests  from  anion^  the  people  at  large,"  etc. 

»  See  below,  Chap.  IX.  p.  304.        *  Cf.  p.  163.  « 1  Sam   iv.  4. 

•  1  Sam.  ii.  11,  18  ;  iii.  1.  •  1  Sam.  Hi.  15.         »  1  Sam.  ill  1. 


190    THE  O.T.  AS  AFFECTED  BY  CRITICISM 

(in  contradiction  of  the  law)  from  the  mention  of  his 
"  linen  ephod "  and  "  little  robe,"  must  be  regarded  as 
another  instance  of  forcing  the  text.1  It  is  inexcusable 
exaggeration  when  Professor  W.  R.  Smith  writes :  "  As  a 
child  he  ministers  before  Jehovah,  wearing  the  ephod 
which  the  law  confines  to  the  high  priest,  and  not 
only  this,  but  the  high  priestly  mantle  (meil)."z  The 
high  priestly  ephod,  as  every  reference  to  it  shows,3  was 
something  distinctive,  and  different  from  "  the  linen  ephod," 
which  was  worn  by  ordinary  priests,4  but  not  by  them 
exclusively.5  The  meil,  or  robe,  again,  was  a  long  sleeve- 
less tunic,  "worn,"  says  Gesenius,  "by  women  of  rank 
(2  Sam.  xiii.  18),  by  men  of  rank  and  birth  (Job  i.  20 ; 
ii.  12),  by  kings  (1  Sam.  xv.  27;  xviii.  4;  xxiv.  4,  II)"6 
— therefore  no  peculiar  property  of  the  high  priest.  The 
usurpation  of  high  priestly  or  even  of  ordinary  priestly 
functions  by  Samuel  is  on  a  par  with  his  sleeping  in  the 
inner  temple  beside  the  sacred  ark. 

NOTE. — The  Ark:  In  connection  with  the  discussions, 
pp.  137—38  and  161-65,  the  author  would  draw  attention 
to  the  searching  Essay  by  Professor  Lotz,  of  Erlangen,  Die 
Bundeslade  (1901),  which  did  not  fall  into  his  hands  till  this 
chapter  was  printed.  It  lends  valuable  support  to  the 
contentions  in  the  text.  See  especially  the  discusssion  of 
the  names  of  the  ark  (pp.  28  ff.). 

1  Thus  Wellhausen,  W.  E.  Smith,  etc.  Wellhausen's  note  should  be 
quoted:  "House  of  God  is  never  anything  hut  the  house  of  an  image. 
Outside  the  Priestly  Code,  ephod  is  the  image  ;  ephod  bad  (the  linen 
ephod),  the  priestly  garment." — Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  130.  Was  Abiathar's 
ephod  then  (p.  132)  an  image  ? 

20.  T.  inJ.  C.,  p.  270. 

»  Cf.  Ex.  xxviii.  6  ;  1  Sam.  ii.  28  ;  xxiii.  6,  9  ;  xxx.  7. 

4  1  Sam.  xxii.  18.     It  was  not,  however,  a  prescribed  part  of  the  dresa. 

8  2  Sam.  rL  14  8  Lexicon,  in  loc. 


APPENDIX  TO   CHAPTER   VI 

PRIESTS  AND  LEVITKS 

DR.  DRIVER  gives  a  reason  for  rejecting  the  view  of  the 
relation  of  priests  and  Invites  indicated  in  the  text,  which, 
if  it  were  valid,  would  be  fatal ;  but  which,  as  it  stands, 
seems  to  us,  we  confess,  an  example  of  that  overstraining 
which  plays  so  large  a  part  in  these  discussions.  He  writes : 
"The  terms  used  in  [Deut.  xviii.]  7  to  describe  the  Levitt- 
services  are  those  used  regularly  of  priestly  duties.  To 
minister  in  thf  namr.  as  xviii.  5  (of  the  priest;  cf.  xvii.  12; 
xxi.  5);  to  xtand  before — i.e.,  to  wait  on  (see,  e.g.,  1  Kings 
x.  8) — Jehorah,  as  Ezek.  xliv.  15 ;  Judg.  xx.  28 ;  cf.  Deut. 
xvii.  12;  xviii.  5.  (The  Levites  'stand  before' — i.e.,  wait 
upon — the  congregation,  Num.  xvi  9;  Ezek.  xliv.  116.  In 
2  Chron.  xxix.  11,  priests  are  present;  see  v.  4)."1  We 
should  not,  of  course,  presume  to  differ  from  Dr.  Driver 
on  a  question  of  philology  or  grammar;  but  this  is  a 
question  of  palpable  fact,  and  invites  examination.  All 
Hebrew  scholars,  besides,  are  far  from  agreeing  with  Dr. 
Driver  in  the  above  dicta.  The  statement  made,  we  venture 
to  think,  needs  much  qualification.  It  is  not  denied  that 
the  terms  employed  are  appropriate  to  priestly  duties;  the 
question  is  whether  they  are  used  of  these  duties  "  regularly  " 
and  only.  And  this  it  is  difficult  to  admit.  The  exact 
phrase  "to  minister  in  the  name"  is,  so  far  as  we  know, 
found  nowhere  else  than  in  vers.  5,  7,  of  this  passage;  but 
the  verb  itself,  "  minister "  (shartth)  is  used  constantly  in 
the  law  and  in  Chronicles  of  Levitical  as  well  as  of  priestly 
service.*  The  Levites,  we  read,  shall  be  appointed  ovc-r 
the  tabernacle  of  the  testimony,  "and  they  shall  minister 

» Introd.  p.  83  (note) ;  cf.  W.  R  Smith,  0.  T.  »i»  /. (7. ,  p.  381. 
'Num.   i.    50;  iii.    «.  31  ;  iv.    9,  12,  14  ;  viii.    26  ;  xvi.   9;  xviii.    2  ; 
1  Chron.  xv.  2 ;  xvi.  4,  37. 

181 


192  APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  VI 

to  it";1  aged  Levites  "shall  minister  with  their  brethren 
in  the  tent  of  meeting,"2  but  shall  do  no  service;  the 
Levites  "  are  chosen  to  carry  the  ark  of  God  and  to  minister 
unto  Him  for  ever  " ; 3  they  "  minister  before  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  of  Jehovah,"  4  etc.  In  fad,  the,  only  use  of  the  word 
"  minister  "  in  the  Book  of  Numbers,  if  we  are  not  mistaken, 
is  with  reference  to  the  service  of  the  Levites?  With  this  may 
be  compared  Dr.  Driver's  own  note  in  his  Deuteronomy, 
where  the  facts  are  stated  more  fully,  but  still,  as  we 
think,  onesidedly.  "  To  minister"  he  there  says,  " is  a  less 
distinctive  term,  being  used  not  only  of  priests,  but  also 
of  Levites  (Num.  viii.  26),  and  other  subordinate  attendants, 
as  in  1  Sam.  ii.  11,  18;  iii.  1  (of  Samuel)."6  [We  gather 
from  this  that  Dr.  Driver  does  not  adopt  Wellhausen's 
theory  that  Samuel  was  a  "priest."]  But  then,  what 
becomes  of  its  peculiar  force  in  Deuteronomy  ?  For  Samuel 
also  ministered  "to  Jehovah";  so  in  1  Chron.  xv.  2,  etc. 
It  does  not  fare  better  with  the  expression  "  to  stand  before 
Jehovah."  Apart  from  the  passage  quoted,  it  is  used  in 
Deuteronomy  once  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,7  and  once  of  the 
Levitical  priest.8  In  the  Levitical  law  it  does  not  occur  at 
all — a  curious  instance  of  "  regularly."  On  the  other  hand, 
in  Chronicles,  the  Levites  "  stand  every  morning  to  thank 
and  praise  Jehovah,  and  likewise  at  even,"9  and  "priests 
and  Levites"  are  addressed  together  as  "chosen  to  stand 
before  Jehovah." 10  In  Nehemiah  also  "  priests  and  Levites  " 
are  spoken  of  together  as  those  who  "  stood." u  Can  it  be 
claimed  that  the  case  is  made  out  ? u 

I  Num.  L  50.  2  Num.  viii.  26. 

»  1  Chron.  xv.  2.  4  1  Chron.  xvi.  4,  37. 

5  The  note  on  the  word  as  found  in  Pin  the  Oxf.  Hexateiuih  is:  "Of 
priests  in  the  sanctuary,  or  of  Levites  attending  on  priests  "  (i.  p.  216). 

6  Deut.  p.  123.  7  Dent.  x.  8. 

8  Deut.  xvii.  12.  »  1  Chron.  xxiii.  30. 

10  2  Chron.  xxix.  11  ;  cf.  xxxv.  5.  Dr.  Driver  says  that  here  "priests 
are  present."  The  important  point  is  that  Levites  also  are  present,  and 
that  both  are  addressed. 

"Neh.  xiL  44  (Heb.). 

II  In  Lev.  ix.  5,  and  a  few  places  in  Deuteronomy  (iv.  10  ;  xix.  17,  etc.), 
" stand  before  Jehovah  "  is  used  of  Israel  generally.     "To  stand  before  the 
congregation "  (used  of  the  Levites)  occurs  once  (Num.   x?L  9  ;  ct  Ezek. 
xliv.  11). 


CHAPTER  VII 

Difficulties  an&  perpletfties  of  tbe  Critical 
Dgpotbesfs :  E.  TTbc  3E  analysis 


11  He  His  fabric  of  the  Heavens 
Hath  left  to  their  disputes ;  perhaps  to  move 
His  laughter  at  their  quaint  opinions  wide 
Hereafter,  when  they  come  to  model  Heaven 
And  calculate  the  stars ;  how  they  will  wield 
The  mighty  frame ; — how  build,  contrive 
To  save  appearances ; — how  gird  the  sphere 
With  centrick  and  eccentrick  scribbled  o'er, 
Cycle  and  epicycle,  orb  in  orb." — MILTON. 

"To  base  a  determination  of  age  on  bare  peculiarities  of  language, 
especially  iu  things  that  concern  legal  relations,  in  which  the  form  of 
expression  is  not  arbitrarily  employed  by  the  writer,  is  precarious.  When  the 
relationship  of  certain  sections  is  assumed  on  perhaps  insufficient  criteria, 
and  then  other  sections  are  added  to  them  because  of  some  similar  lin- 
guistic phenomena,  and  from  these  again  further  and  further  conclusions  are 
drawn,  one  easily  runs  the  risk  of  moving  in  a  vicious  circle." — GRAF. 

"The  history  of  critical  investigation  has  shown  that  far  too  much 
weight  has  often  been  laid  on  agreement  in  the  use  of  the  divine  names — so 
much  so  that  it  has  twice  led  the  critics  wrong.  It  is  well  therefore  to 
utter  a  warning  against  laying  an  exaggerated  stress  on  this  one  phenomenon. " 
— KUKNBN. 

"  No  intelligent  observer,  however,  will  deny  that  the  work  of  investiga- 
tion has  gone  onwards,  and  not  moved  in  a  circle." — DELITZSCH. 


1M 


CHAPTER  VII 

DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES  OF  THE  CRITI- 
CAL HYPOTHESIS :  L  THE  JE  ANALYSIS 

THUS  far  we  have  been  content  to  proceed  on  the  assumption 
of  the  correctness  of  the  ordinary  critical  analysis  of  docu- 
ments in  the  "  Hexateuch,"  and,  without  challenging  either 
documents  or  dates,  have  endeavoured  to  show  that,  even 
on  this  basis,  the  essential  facts  of  the  history,  and  the 
outstanding  features  in  the  Biblical  picture  of  the  religion 
and  institutions  of  Israel,  remain  unaffected.  We  now  take 
a  further  step,  and  go  on  to  inquire  whether  the  critical 
theory  of  documents,  as  usually  presented,  is  valid,  and, 
if  at  all,  how  far.  Here  we  part  company  with  many, 
of  whose  help,  in  defending  the  truth  of  supernatural  revela- 
tion, we  have  hitherto  gladly  availed  ourselves,  but  who, 
we  are  compelled  to  think,  have  unnecessarily  hampered 
themselves,  and  weakened  their  contentions,  by  assent  to 
critical  positions  which  are  far  from  being  solidly  established. 
We  shall  still  seek,  as  far  as  may  be,  common  ground  with 
these  writers,  and  hope  to  show  that,  if  we  break  with  them, 
our  doubts  are  born,  not  from  an  obstinate  wedding  of  the 
mind  to  obsolete  traditions,  but  from  a  sincere  regard  to 
the  facts,  as  we  are  constrained  to  apprehend  them. 

It  is  not  uncommon  to  find  the  course  of  criticism 
during  the  last  century  represented  as  purely  a  work  of 
unbelief,  resulting  in  hopeless  error  and  confusion.  That, 
however,  is  not  altogether  our  opinion.  If  it  cannot  well 
be  denied  that,  as  before  stated,  what  is  called  "  Higher 
Criticism"  was  cradled  in,  and  received  its  characteristic 
"set"  from  the  older  rationalism,1  and  if,  unfortunately, 

1  That  this  statement  is  not  too  strong  may  bo  neen  from  the  names  of 
its  founders  as  given  in  Cheyne  and  other  writers.  Choyno  himself  censures 
the  early  excesses  of  criticism.  "  In  the  previous  age  "  (before  Ueaenius),  ha 


196       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

this  vice  of  its  origin  has  clung  to  it,  more  or  less,  in  all 
its  subsequent  developments,  it  would  be  unreasonable  not 
to  acknowledge  that  it  is  also,  in  large  part,  the  product 
of  a  genuinely  scientific  temper,  and  of  a  true  perception 
of  phenomena  which  are  there  in  Scripture,  and,  on  any 
theory,  require  explanation.  Its  course,  too,  has  been 
marked  by  a  real  and  continuous  advance  in  the  appre- 
hension of  these  phenomena,  and,  with  whatever  mingling 
of  error,  has  tended  to  an  ever  closer  definition  of  the 
problem  to  be  solved.  A  brief  glance  at  the  principal 
stadia  in  the  history  of  the  development  will  illustrate 
what  we  mean. 

I.  STADIA  OF  THE  CRITICAL  DEVELOPMENT 

The  chief  stages  in  the  development  of  the  critical 
hypothesis  have  been  the  following: — 

1.  The  beginning  of  the  critical  movement  is  usually 
associated  with  the  French  physician  Astruc*  who,  in  his 
Conjectures,  in  1753,  drew  attention  to  the  presence  of 
Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  sections  in  Genesis,  and  on  this 
based  his  theory  of  the  employment  of  distinct  documents 
in  the  composition  of  the  book.  The  fact  thus  founded  on 
is  a  highly  interesting  one,  and,  once  pointed  out,  cannot 
be  ignored.  It  is  the  case  that  some  chapters,  and  portions 
of  chapters,  in  Genesis  are  marked  by  the  use,  exclusively 
or  predominatingly,  of  the  divine  name  "Elohim"  (God), 
and  others  by  a  similar  use  of  the  divine  name  "  Jehovah  " 
(E.T.  LORD).  This  distinction  continues  till  Ex.  vi., 
when  God  reveals  Himself  by  His  name  Jehovah,  then 
(mainly)  ceases.  A  considerable  part  of  Genesis,  accordingly, 
can  really,  by  the  use  of  this  criterion,  be  divided  into 

says,  "there  had  been  an  epidemic  of  arbitrary  emendation  in  the  depart- 
ment of  textual  criticism,  and  a  tendency  (at  any  rate  among  some  'higher 
critics'  of  the  Pentateuch  and  Isaiah)  to  break  up  the  text  into  a  number 
of  separate  pieces,  which  threatened  to  open  the  door  to  unbounded  caprice." 
— Founders  of  Criticism,  p.  63.  [What  will  a  future  critic  say  of  Dr. 
Cheyne  ?]  The  result  is  described  by  Tholuck  in  his  inaugural  lecture  at 
Halle  in  1821 :  "For  the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years  the  opinion  has  been 
generally  prevalent,  that  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament  for  theologians, 
as  well  as  the  devotional  reading  of  it  for  the  laity,  is  either  entirely  profit- 
less, or  at  least  promises  little  advantage"  (Ibid.  p.  67). 

1  One  of  the  best  accounts  of  Astruc  is  that  by  Dr.  H.  Osgood  in  The 
Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review  for  January  1892.  It  shows  that  Astruc's 
personal  character  was  deeply  marred  by  the  vices  of  French  society. 


L  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  197 

Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  sections.1  A  fact  to  be  placed 
alongside  of  this,  though  its  full  bearings  do  not  always 
seem  to  be  perceived,  is  that  in  the  Psalter  we  have  an 
arrangement  of  psalms  into  Jehovistic  and  Elohistic  groups 
by  a  similar  distinction  in  the  use  of  the  divine  names.8 

2.  A  further   step  was   taken  when    Eichhom  (1779),8 
to  whom  is  due  the  name  "  Higher   Criticism,"  and  who 
seems  to  have  worked  independently  of  Astruc,  pointed  out 
that  the  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  sections  in  Genesis  were 
distinguished,  not  simply  by  the  use  of  the  divine  names, 
but  by  certain  other  literary  peculiarities,  which  furnished 
aid   in    their    discrimination.      The    Elohistic   sections  in 
particular — not  all  of  them,  as  came  afterwards  to  be  seen — 
were  found  to  be  characterised  by  a  vocabulary  and  style 
of   their   own,  which   enabled   them,   on   the  whole,  to   be 
readily  distinguished.     This  result  also,  whatever  explana- 
tion may  be  offered  of  it,  has  stood  the  test  of  time,  and 
will  not,  we  believe,  be  overturned.     The  long  lists  of  words 
and  phrases  customarily  adduced   as   characteristic  of  the 
Elohist  (now  P),  need,  indeed,  much  sifting,4  but  enough 
remains  to  justify  the  critic  in  distinguishing  a  P  hand  in 
Genesis,  different  from  that  of  JE.6 

3.  It  was  at  this  point  that  De  Wette  struck  in  with  his 
thesis  (1805-6)  that  Deuteronomy,  shown  by  him  to  have 
also  a  style  and  character  of  its  own,  could  not  have  been 

1  Aa  examples  of  Elohistic  sections  in  this  sense,  cf.  Gen.  i.-ii.  3  ;  r. ; 
xvii. ;  xxiii. ;  xxv.  7-17,  etc. :  in  the  story  of  the  flood,  vi.  9-22  ;  Tii.  11- 
16;  ix.  1-18,  etc.  As  specimens  of  Jehovistic  section*,  cf.  Gen.  ii.  4-iv. ; 
xi.  1-9  ;  xii. ;  xiii.  (mainly) ;  xviii.,  xix.,  etc.,  with  the  alternate  sections 
in  the  flood  atory. 

*  The  Psalter  is  divided  into  five  Books,  each  concluding  with  a  doxology 
(Pas.  xli.  13 ;  Ixxii.  18,  19  ;  Ixxxix.    52  ;  cvi.    48).     In   the  first  three  of 
these  books  the  psalms  are  grouped  according  to  the  predominant  use  of 
the  divine  names  :  Hook  I.  (i.-xli.),  Jehovittie,  ascribed  to  David  ;  Bo<>k  II. 
(xlii. -Ixxii.),  Elohistic,  a«cril>ed  to  sons  of  Korah,  Asaph  (one  psalm),  David  ; 
Book  III.  (Ixxiii.-lxxxix.),  Jrhoristie,  ascribed  to  Asaph,  sons  of  Korah,  etc. 
The  last  two  books  are  mainly  Jehovistic.     See  below,  pp.  277  ff.,  on  these 
group*  of  psalms,  and  their  significance.     For  details,  cf.   W.    K.  Smith, 
O.  T.  in  J.  0.,  pp.  195-96,  etc. 

*  Eichhorn  was  a  rationalist  of  the  Paulus  type,  giving  a  naturalistic 
explanation  of  the  miracles. 

4  See  below,  pp.  836  ff. 

'  Astrnc  and  Eu-hhorn  did  not  carry  the  analysis  beyond  Genesis,  thongh 
Eichhorn  suggests  such  extension  (cf.  De  Wette,  Introd.  ii.  p.  150).  Both 
regarded  Moses  (wholly  or  mainlv)  as  the  compiler.  Their  position  may 
be  compared  with  that  of  Principal  Cave  in  his  Inspiration  of  uu  O.T.,  who, 
however,  makes  Moses  also  the  proluble  author  of  both  documents. 


198       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

composed  earlier  than  the  reign  of  Josiah.  This  he  inferred 
mainly  from  the  law  of  the  central  sanctuary  in  Deut. 
xii.,  and  from  the  breaches  of  that  law  in  the  older  history, 
considered  in  last  chapter.  Westphal  has  declared  that 
"  Deuteronomy  is  the  Ariadne's  thread  in  the  labyrinth  of 
the  historical  problem  of  the  Pentateuch," l  and  we  are  not 
sure  that  we  are  not  disposed  to  agree  with  him,  if  in  a 
sense  different  from  what  he  intended.  Meanwhile,  as 
was  inevitable,  the  question  arose  as  to  whether  the 
Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  documents  did  not  extend  beyond 
Genesis  into  the  remaining  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and, 
further,  into  Joshua  (Bleek,  1822),  with  which  the  earlier 
books  are  so  closely  connected.  In  this  extension,  the 
criterion  of  the  divine  names  failed,2  but  the  other  linguistic 
phenomena,  and  relations  with  acknowledged  J  and  E 
sections,  were  relied  on  to  establish  the  distinction.  Thus, 
mainly  under  the  guidance  of  Bleek,  Ewald  (1831),  and 
Stahelin  (1835),3  the  criticism  of  the  "  Pentateuch  "  passed 
definitely  over  into  that  of  the  "  Hexateuch "  —  the 
Pentateuch  and  Joshua. 

4.  The  next  step  is  connected  with  Hupfeld  (1853),  and 
marks  again  a  distinct  advance.  Ilgen  (1798)  had  preluded 
the  discovery,  but  Hupfeld,  with  more  success,  drew 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  assumed  Elohistic  document 
in  Genesis  was  not  all  of  one  cast.  Certain  sections — all, 
indeed,  up  to  chap.  xx. — had  the  well-marked  characteristics 
now  attributed  to  P ;  but  other  portions,  agreeing  in  the 
use  of  the  name  Elohim,  were  quite  dissimilar  in  style, 
and  closely  resembled  the  Jehovistic  parts — were,  in  fact, 
indistinguishable  from  the  latter,  save  in  the  difference  of 
the  divine  names.4  Hupfeld's  solution  was  that  we  have 
here  a  document  from  a  third  writer — named  by  him  the 
2nd  Elohist  (E),  who  agreed  with  the  older  in  the  use  of 

1  Sources  du  Pent.  ii.  p.  xxiv.  De  Wette,  with  most  scholars  of  that  age, 
regarded  the  Elohistic  document  as  the  older,  and  partly  on  that  ground 
argued  for  the  lateness  of  Deuteronomy  (to  give  time  tor  development). 
Modern  scholars,  reversing  the  relations  of  age,  yet  hold  by  De  Wette's 
conclusion. 

8  Colenso  to  the  last  (in  published  works)  broke  off  the  Elohistic  narra- 
tive at  Ex.  vi. ;  Cave,  attributing  it  to  Moses  (or  earlier  writer),  does  the 
same — a  curious  instance  of  extremes  meeting. 

8  Stahelin  made  important  contributions  in  Stud,  und  Krit.,  1835 
and  1838. 

4  Examples  are  Gen.  xx.  ;  XXL  6.-xxii. ;  xxvi. 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  199 

the  name  Elohim,  but  whose  style,  vocabulary,  and  mode 
of  representation  were  akin  to,  and  nearly  identical  with, 
those  of  the  Johovist.  This  observation,  again,  in  substance 
corresponds  with  facts ;  for  it  is  the  case  that  in  the  sections 
in  question  there  is  little  or  nothing  to  distinguish  the 
Elohist  from  the  Jehovist,  beyond  the  use  of  the  divine 
names.1  A  natural  solution  would  seem  to  be  that,  despite 
the  difference  in  names,  the  documents  are  not  really  two, 
but  one ; 2  but  modern  critics  generally  adhere  to  Hupfeld's 
distinction  of  J  and  E,  and  evolve  a  number  of  other 
peculiarities  which  are  thought  to  distinguish  the  two 
writers.  The  theory  had  its  disadvantages,  which  kept 
many  of  the  older  scholars,  e.g.,  Bleek,  from  assenting  to 
it;  for,  while  explaining  certain  stylistic  phenomena,  it 
destroyed,  in  d*«ing  so,  the  previously  boasted  unity  of  the 
Elohistic  narrative,8  and  created  in  the  latter  great  and 
unaccountable  hiatuses:  left  in  fact,  as  we  shall  see,  only 
a  few  fragments  and  lists  for  P  after  Gen.  xxiii.  to  the  end 
of  the  book  !  * 

5.  The  final  stage  in  the  development — if  that  can  be 
termed  development  which  is  more  properly  revolution — 
outstrips  in  importance  all  the  preceding.  Hitherto,  with 
some  little  regarded  exceptions,6  the  universal  assumption 
liad  been  that  the  Elohistic  Writer,  or  1st  Elohist — was  the 
oldest  of  all,  and  his  date  was  variously  fixed  in  the  time  of 
the  Judges,  or  in  the  reigns  of  Saul  or  David.  The  order 
was  assumed  to  be :  1st  Elohist — Jehovist  and  2nd  Elohist 
— Deuteronomy.  Then  came  the  somersault  of  Graf,  who, 
in  his  Historical  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  1866, 

1  Colenso,  who  only  partially  accepted  Hupfeld's  analysis,  says:  "The 
style  of  the  two  writers  1.1  so  very  similar  ,excupt  in  the  use  of  the  divine 
names,  that  it  is  impossible  to  distinguish  them  by  considerations  of  style 
alone."— Pent.  v.  p.  69. 

*  Colenso  favours  this  solution    for    the  parts  he  accepts  of  E :    so 
Klostermann.     Cf.  below,  p.  218. 

•  Cf.  De  Wette,  Introd.  li.  p.  77  :  "The  Elohistic  fragments  form  a  whole 
which  can  be  reduced  to  a  form  almost  perfect."    (See  below,  pp.  333,  341.) 
On  the  other  hand,  writers  like  Bleek  (more  recently  rave),  who  accept  the 
Klohistic  narrative  in  its  integrity,  are  in  this  dilemma,  that  they  destroy 
their  own  grounds  lor  distinguishing  the  Elohint  from  the  Jehoviat     For  it 
has  to  be  admitted  that  considerable  sections  of  the  Elohistic  document  are 
in  every  respect  of  style  (except  the  names)  indistinguishable  from  the 
Jehovistic.     Those  again  who,  like  Colenso,  in  parts  identify  E  with  J,  have 
to  own  that  the  name*  are  not  an  infallible  criterion. 

4  See  below,  pp.  841  ff.  •  See  below,  p.  204. 


200      DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

propounded  the  view,1  which  he  owed  to  Keuss,2  that  the 
legislation  of  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  (the 
Levitical  law)  was  not  earlier,  but  later,  than  Deuteronomy 
— was,  in  fact,  a  product  of  the  age  of  the  exile.  Graf, 
however,  was  not  yet  of  the  opinion  that  all  the  Elohistic 
sections  of  the  Pentateuch  were  late:  he  accepted  the 
ordinary  view  that  the  Elohistic  writing  was  the  oldest  for 
the  historical  sections,  but  contended  that  the  priestly  laws 
were  a  later,  and  post-exilian,  insertion.8  Kuenen  and 
Eiehm,  from  opposite  sides,  wrote  to  show  that  this  was  an 
untenable  position.  History  and  laws  go  together,  and 
either  the  whole  is  early,  or  the  whole  is  late.*  Graf  before 
his  death  acknowledged  the  force  of  Kuenen's  arguments 
for  the  late  date  of  the  (P)  history  as  well  as  of  the  legis- 
lation,6 while  not  admitting  that  the  P  writing  constituted 
an  independent  document.  Owing  mainly  to  the  powerful 
advocacy  of  Wellhausen,6  the  more  thoroughgoing  view  has 
prevailed,  and,  as  formerly  stated,  it  is  now  held  to  be  one 
of  the  "settled"  results  of  criticism7  that  the  Priestly 
element  is  the  very  latest  constituent  in  the  Hexateuch, 
and  is  of  exilian  or  post-exilian  date.  Yet  in  one 'respect 

1  See  above,  p.  160.     An  earlier  work  in  1855,  De  templo  Silonensi,  pre- 
luded the  idea  of  his  chief  work. 

2  Cf.  Kuenen.  Hex.  pp.  xxxiv-v.     Reuss's  own  work,  L'Hi-stoire  Sainteet 
la  Loi,  was  published  in  1879. 

*  This  also  was  Colenso's  position  in  his  published  works,  after  he  had 
come  round  to  Grafs  standpoint  (Pent.  Pts.  v.  and  vi.) — history  early,  laws 
late.  See  below,  p.  334. 

4  Kuenen  puts  it  thus :  "  Must  the  laws  stand  with  the  narratives,  or 
must  the  narratives  fall  with  the  laws  ?  I  could  not  hesitate  for  a  moment 
in  accepting  the  latter  alternative." — Hex.  p.  xxii. 

8  Ibid.  pp.  xxviii,  xxx.  Professor  Robertson  properly  says:  "To  say 
bluntly  that  the  narratives  must  go  with  the  laws,  is  no  more  a  process  of 
criticism  than  to  say  that  the  laws  must  go  with  the  history.  It  is  therefore 
inaccurate  to  describe  the  position  of  Graf  as  a  conclusion  of  criticism.  It 
was  simply  a  hypothesis  to  evade  a  difficulty  in  which  criticism  had  landed 
him."— Early  Rel.  pp.  418-19. 

8  Wellhausen  tells  us:  "I  learned  through  Ritschl  that  Karl  Heinrich 
Graf  placed  the  law  later  than  the  prophets  ;  and,  almost  without  knowing 
hia  reasons  for  the  hypothesis,  I  was  prepared  to  accept  it." — Hist,  of 
Israel,  p.  3. 

7  Professor  W.  R.  Smith  names  "  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen  as  the  men 
whose  acumen  and  research  have  carried  this  inquiry  to  a  point  where  nothing 
of  importance  for  the  historical  study  of  the  Old  Testament  still  remains 
uncertain." — Rel.  of  Semites,  p.  viL  There  oan  be  "no  doubt,"  says  a 
recent  able  writer,  that  "all  this  part  of  the  Hexateuch  is,  in  its  present 
form,  )>ost-exilic." — McFadyen,  Mess,  of  Historians.  See  Note  A  on  Self- 
ConKdence  of  Critics,  p.  240. 


L  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  201 

even  this  theory,  which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  oppose 
very  decidedly,  appears  to  us  to  mark  an  advance.  In  so  far 
as  a  documentary  hypothesis  is  to  be  accepted  at  all — on 
which  after — it  is  difficult  to  resist  the  conviction  that  P 
must  be  regarded  as  relatively  later  than  JE,  for  whose 
narratives,  in  Genesis  at  least,  it  furnishes  the  "  framework," l 
and  that  it  is  not,  as  former  critics  held,  a  separate  older 
work.  In  agreement  with  Graf,2  however,  we  do  not  suppose 
that  at  any  period  it  ever  formed  a  separate,  independent 
writing. 

As  supplementing  this  sketch  of  the  chief  stadia  in  the 
critical  development,  a  glance  may  be  taken  at  the  views 
which  have  been  held  on  the  relation  of  the  dements  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  the  course  of  this  long  history.  These  may 
be  roughly  divided  into  the  fragmentary,  the  supplementary, 
and  the  documentary. 

(1)  At  an  early  stage  Vater  (1805)  and  others  developed 
the  idea  that  the  Pentateuch  was  made  up,  not  of  continuous 
documents,  but  of  a  great  number  of  smaller/ra^m^nte    This 
view  was  vigorously  contested,  especially  with  respect  to  the 
Book  of  Genesis,  by  Stahelin,  Ewald  (1823),  Tuch  (1838), 
etc.,  as  well  as  by  the   thoroughgoing  defenders    of    the 
Mosaic  authorship,  who,  till  the   middle   of  the  century, 
formed  an  influential  group.8    The  f ragmen tist  view  was 
regarded  as  overcome ;  but  it  will  be  seen  as  we  advance  that 
the  newer  criticism,  with  its  multiplication  of  documents 
(P1  P1  P*  etc.),  its  substitution  of  "  schools  "  for  individual 
authors,  and  its   minute   tesselation  of    texts,  represents 
largely  a  return  to  it4 

(2)  The  theory  which  superseded  the  fragmentary  was 
that  of  an  Elohistic  groundwork,  or  fundamental  document 
(Cfrundschrift),  supplemented  at  a  later  time  by  Jehovistic 
additions.    This  was  the  view  of  Bleek,  and  of  most  of  the 
above-named  writers :  later  representatives  of  it  are  Knobel, 

1  Cf.  Klostermann,  Pentateuch,  p.  10.     On  P  as  "  framework, "  see  below, 
pp.  215,  340. 

*  Gnf  Adhered  to  this  till   his  death,  cf.  Knenen,  Hex.  p.  xxx.     Se« 
below,  rhap.  X. 

*  The  beat  known  names  in  this  conservative  school  are  those  of  Banke, 
Drechsler,  Hengstenbvrg,  Havernick,  Keil. 

4  For  examples,  cf.  text  and  notes  in  Oxford  HexaUufk,  which  hardly 
leaves  a  paragraph,  Terse,  or  even  clause  untouched. 


202       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

Schrader,  and  Colenso.1  It  was  a  theory  which,  granting 
its  initial  assumption,  had  much  to  recommend  it.  Its 
advocates  based  on  the  fact  that  the  Jehovistic  narrative, 
as  it  stands,  is  incomplete,  and  presupposes  the  Elohistic : 
e.g.,  it  has  no  command  to  build  the  ark  (cf.  Gen.  vii.  1), 
and  contains  no  notices  of  the  deaths  of  the  patriarchs. 
"  It  is  still  more  unmistakable,"  argued  Bleek,  "  that  those 
Elohistic  portions  in  the  first  part  of  our  book  refer  to  one 
another,  presuppose  one  another,  and  follow  one  another 
in  due  course,  whilst  they  take  no  notice  of  the  Jehovistic 
passages  lying  between  them." z  Its  opponents  reply  that  it 
is  impossible  that  the  Jehovist  could  have  filled  in  passages 
which,  as  they  hold,  are  contradictory  of  the  main  narrative.3 
Hupfeld's  theory  of  the  2nd  Elohist  weakened  this  view, 
and  it  fell  to  the  ground  altogether  when  the  Graf  theory 
came  to  prevail,  that  P  ( =  the  Elohist)  was  not  the  earliest, 
but  the  latest,  of  the  sources. 

(3)  The  documentary  hypothesis — earliest  of  all — after- 
wards revived  by  Hupfeld,  rose  again  to  favour,  and  since 
Graf's  time  has  generally  been  held  in  the  form  already 
described,  viz.,  JE  and  P  as  independent  documents,  which 
have  been  combined  with  each  other,  and  with  Deuteronomy 
(D),  by  a  redactor,  or  series  of  redactors.  So  stated,  the 
theory  seems  simple :  its  enormous  difficulties  are  only  re- 
vealed when  the  attempt  is  made  to  work  it  out  in  detail. 
We  advance  now  to  the  consideration  of  these  difficulties, 
with  a  view  to  the  attainment  of  a  more  positive  result. 

II.  DIFFICULTIES  OF  THE  CRITICAL  HYPOTHESIS 

IN  GENERAL 

The  course  of  criticism,  we  have  granted,  has  been  in 
a  very  real  sense  onward,  so  far  as  the  discovery  of 
phenomena  is  concerned.  As  the  outcome,  the  critics  are 
justified  in  saying  that  on  certain  leading  points  there  is 
very  general  agreement  in  their  ranks.  It  is  agreed  that 
four  main  sources  are  to  be  distinguished  in  the  Pentateuch 
(or  Hexateuch) — J  E  D  P — and  that  these  have  been  com- 

1  Colenso  maintained   his  supplementary  theory  to  the  close  against 
Hupfeld  and  Kuenen.     See  below,  p.  334. 
*  Introd.  i.  p.  275. 
'  Cf.,  e.g.,  Dillmann,  Genesis,  i.  pp.  14,  15 ;  Kuenen,  Hex.  p.  160. 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  203 

bined  by  one  or  more  hands  to  form  the  present  work.  It 
is  also  very  generally  believed  (not,  however,  by  Dillmann), 
that  J  and  £  were  combined,  if  not  before  the  time  of 
Deuteronomy  (Kittel,  Addis,  and  others  think  after),  at 
least  before  their  final  union  with  that  book  (D)  and  with 
P.  Beyond  these  very  general  results,1  however,  it  is,  as 
will  immediately  be  seen,  highly  misleading  to  speak,  as  is 
sometimes  done,  of  unanimity.  Agreement  in  main  features 
of  the  critical  division  there  is,  especially  with  regard  to 
P,  —  the  original  premises  beinj,'  grunted,  there  is  little 
alternative, — hut  whenever  the  attempt  is  made  to  carry 
the  analysis  into  details,  or  to  establish  a  consistent  theory 
of  the  relations  of  the  documents,  or  of  their  mode  of  com- 
bination, divergences  wide  and  deep  reveal  themselves,  com- 
plications thicken  at  every  step,  and  inevitable  doubt  arisei 
as  to  the  soundness  of  the  premises  which  lead  to  such 
perplexity  in  the  results.  Two  unimpeachable  witnessea 
may  be  cited  at  the  outset  in  general  corroboration  of  what 
is  said  as  to  the  absence  of  unanimity.  Kautzsch,  the 
author,  with  Socin,  of  one  of  the  best  typographical  analyses 
of  the  Book  of  Genesis,  makes  this  remarkable  statement : 
"  In  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Book  of  Joshua,  it  is  only  with 
regard  to  P  that  something  approaching  to  unanimity  has 
been  reached."  *  Kuenen,  again,  says  with  special  reference 
to  JE :  "  As  the  analysis  has  been  carried  gradually  further, 
it  has  become  increasingly  evident  that  the  critical  question 
is  far  more  difficult  and  involved  than  was  at  first  supposed, 
and  the  solutions  which  seemed  to  have  been  secured  have 
been  in  whole  or  in  part  brought  into  question  again."* 
These  words  might  be  taken  as  the  text  of  nearly  everything 
that  follows. 

1.  With  every  allowance  for  what  may  be  said  of  pro- 
grass,  inevitable  doubt  is  awakened  in  regard  to  the  soundness 
of  the  critical  process  by  the  conflicts  of  opinion  which  the 

1  Wcstpbal  reduces  the  results  on  which  there  is  agreement  to  three : 
"(1)  The  existence,  henceforth  established,  of  four  sources  in  the  Pentateuch  : 
the  l»t  Elohist,  or  Priestly  Code,  the  2nd  Elohist,  the  Jehoriat,  and  the 
Deatcronomiat ;  (2)  the  admission  of  the  fact  that  each  of  these  sources, 
before  its  entrance  into  the  composition  of  our  Biblical  books,  existed  as  am 
independent  writing  ;  (3)  the  unanimity  of  scholars  aa  to  the  manner  in 
which  it  is  necessary  to  reconstruct,  at  least  in  their  great  lines,  the  four 
sources  indicated." — Sources  du  Pent.  ii.  p.  xxvi.  We  shall  see  that  even 
this  statement  requires  considerable  modification. 

*JL\t.  tfO.T.,  p.  226.  •  Hex.  p.  139. 


204       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

history  of  criticism  itself  discovers.  It  is  to  be  remembered, 
in  discussing  this  subject,  that  the  J  E  D  P  of  the  critics — 
so  far  as  not  simply  symbols  for  the  supposed  documents 
themselves — with  their  serial  duplicates,  to  be  immediately 
referred  to,  and  the  numerous  retinue  of  redactors,  are, 
though  spoken  of  so  familiarly,  purely  hypothetical  entities 
— postulated  beings,  of  whom  history  or  tradition  knows 
nothing.  Moses,  Joshua,  Samuel,  we  know,  or  think  we  do ; 
but  these  shadows  have  left  no  trace  of  themselves,  save,  if 
it  be  so,  in  their  work,  now  taken  to  pieces  again  by  the 
critics.  When  we  desire  to  know  something  more  of  their 
time  or  their  relations,  we  are  in  a  region  in  which,  the 
history  of  criticism  being  witness,  the  agreements  are  far 
overborne  by  the  disagreements.  Do  we  ask  when  they 
lived  ?  the  dates  assigned  to  P  (the  1st  Elohist),  we  have 
found,  range  from  the  days  of  Samuel  (Bleek,  Colenso,  older 
writers  generally),  through  the  period  of  the  kings  (Eiehm, 
Dillmann,  Noldeke,  Schrader,  etc.),  to  the  time  of  the  exile,  or 
later  (Graf  school).  The  dates  of  JE  run  from  the  time  of  the 
Judges  (Konig,  Kohler,  etc.)  to  the  tenth,  ninth,  eighth  cen- 
turies, with,  in  the  view  of  Kuenen, "  Judaean  editions  "  after. 
The  composition  of  Deuteronomy  is  commonly  placed  in 
the  reign  of  Josiah,  or  of  Manasseh ;  but  many  able  critics 
(Delitzsch,  Oettli,  Klostermann,  etc.)  hold  it  to  be  much 
older,  and  in  kernel  Mosaic;  while  others  divide  it  up, 
and  put  extensive  portions  later  than  Josiah.  Do  we 
inquire  as  to  dependence  ?  The  older  view  was,  as  we  saw, 
that  J  and  E  are  supplementary  to  P ;  the  newer  theory  is 
that  P  is  later  than  JE  and  presupposes  them.  J  is 
held  by  many  (Dillmann,  Noldeke,  Schrader,  Kittel,  etc.)  to 
be  dependent  on  E  and  to  have  borrowed  from  him ; 
Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  Stade,  etc.,  as  confidently  reverse  the 
relation,  and  make  E  dependent  on  J;1  others  treat  the 
documents  as  practically  independent  (e.g.,  Woods).2  One 
set  of  critics  (Dillmann,  Riehm,  etc.)  hold  that  the  marks 
demonstrate  E  to  be  about  a  century  older  than  J ;  the  pre- 
vailing tendency  at  present  is  to  make  J  about  a  century 
older  than  E.  Addis  says  that  this  question  of  priority  "  is 

1  Wellhausen  points  out  that  E  "  has  come  down  to  us  only  in  extracts 
embodied  in  the  Jehovist  narrative,"  and  appears  to  doubt  its  independence. 
Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  7,  8.     See  below,  p.  217. 

2  Art.  "Hexateuch"  in  Diet,  of  Bible. 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  205 

still  one  of  the  most  vexed  questions  in  the  criticism  of  the 
Hi'xateuch." 1  The  interesting  point  in  the  discussion  is  the 
cogency  with  which  each  critic  refutes  the  reasonings  of  his 
neighbours,  and  shows  them  to  be  nugatory.  All  this  would 
matter  little,  if  it  were,  as  is  sometimes  said,  mere  variation 
on  the  surface,  with  slight  bearing  on  the  soundness  of  the 
theory  as  a  whole.  But  it  is  far  from  that.  The  criteria 
which  determine  these  judgments  are  found  on  inspection 
to  go  deep  into  the  substance  of  the  theory,  and  afford 
a  valuable  practical  test  of  the  principles  by  which  it  is 
built  up.1 

2.  These  perplexities  are  slight,  however,  in  comparison 
with  those  arising  from  another  cause  now  to  be  mentioned 
— the  excessive  multiplication  of  sources.  The  matter  is 
relatively  simple  when  we  have  to  deal  only  with  a  J  £  D 
or  P,  and  when  the  critic  honestly  abides  by  these.  But, 
as  the  analysis  proceeds,  we  find  it  impossible  to  stop 
here.  As  the  old  Ptolemaic  astronomer  discovered  that, 
to  explain  the  irregularities  in  the  visible  motions  of  the 
heavenly  bodies,  he  had  to  add  epicycles  to  his  original 
cycles,  then  fresh  epicycles  to  these,  till  his  chart  became 
a  huge  maze  of  complications — and  incredibilities ;  so  the 
critic  finds  that  the  application  of  the  same  criteria 
which  guided  him  in  the  severance  of  his  main  documents, 
necessitates,  when  pushed  further,  a  continuance  of  the 
process,  and  the  splitting  up  of  the  documents  into  yet 
minuter  parts.  Hence  new  divisions,  and  the  gradual 
resolution  of  the  original  JE,  etc.,  into  the  nebulous  series, 
JW;  E'E'E8;  r»l*l*l";  l^R'R8,  etc.,  or  equivalents; 
all  of  which  have  now  become  part  of  the  recognised 
apparatus  of  the  critical  schools.8  Can  we  wonder  that 

1  Hex.  I  p.  Ixxxi. 

'  E.g.,  Driver  says  on  the  opposite  views  of  Dillmann  and  Wellhauaen 
about  J  and  E  :  "  The  difference  turns  in  part  upon  a  different  conception  of 
the  limit*  of  J.  Dillmann's  '  J  '  embraces  more  than  Wellhausen's  'J'  .  .  . 
Dillmann's  date,  e.  750,  is  assigned  to  J  largrly  on  the  ground  of  just  those 
(MAsa^es  which  form  no  part  of  Wellhausen's  J."—  Introd.  p.  123.  Kittel, 
again,  upholding  Dillmann's  view,  says:  "  When  \\Vlll.auwu  Finds  £  to  be 
in  closer  contact  than  J  with  the  specially  prophetic  M>U  it  .  .  .  this  arises,  at 
any  rate  in  part,  from  his  altogether  jxxniliar  analysis  of  J;  an  analysis 
which,  again,  is  based  on  this  character  assigned  to  J  by  him." — J/itt.  of 
Hebt.  i.  p.  80.  Again  :  "  Kueu<  n  will  not  admit  any  reference  (in  Amos 
and  Hosca)  to  E,  but  only  to  J;  Dillniauu  cannot  nee  any  acquaintance  with 
J,  but  only  with  K.  I  cannot  assent  to  either  view."  Ibid.  p.  83. 

1  Cf.  Oxford  HexaUuch,  or  any  of  the  text-books.     As  a  popular  book, 


206       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

even  a  tolerably  advanced  critic  like  Dillniann  should 
write:  "with  a  Q^Q8  [=  P],  JW,  E^E3  I  can  do 
nothing,  and  can  only  see  in  them  a  hypothesis  of  per- 
plexity." l  Assume  such  multiples  to  have  existed,  does 
anyone  with  a  modicum  of  common  sense  believe  it  possible 
for  a  twentieth  century  critic  to  pick  their  handiwork  to 
pieces  again,  and  assign  to  each  his  proper  fragment  of  the 
whole  ?  These  processional  Js  and  Es,  however,  should  not 
be  scoffed  at  as  arbitrary.  They  are  really  indispensable 
parts  of  a  critical  stock-in-trade  if  the  original  principles  of 
the  theory  are  to  be  consistently  carried  out.  In  that  respect 
they  serve  again  as  a  test  of  the  value  of  these  principles. 
The  critic  thinks  he  observes,  for  instance,  within  the  limits 
of  the  same  document,  a  discrepancy,  or  a  new  turn  of 
expression,  or  a  duplicate  incident — the  denial  of  a  wife, 
e.g.,  in  Gen.  xii  xxvi.,  both  in  J,2  or  a  seeming  intermingling 
of  two  stories — in  Koran's  rebellion,  e.g.,  in  Num.  xvi.  2—11, 
P,3 — or  a  reference  in  J  (older  writer)  to  E  (younger) :  what 
is  to  be  done  except  to  assume  that  there  is  here  a  trace 
of  a  distinct  source,  or  of  a  redactor  ?  4  The  hypothesis 
is  as  essential  to  the  critic  as  his  epicycle  was  to  the 
Ptolemaic  star-gazer. 

3.  The  matter  becomes  still  more  complicated  when, 
finally,  the  problematical  J  E  D  P  lose  all  individuality, 
and  are  frankly  transformed,  as  they  are  by  most  of  the 
newer  writers,  into  schools.5  When  these  "schools"  are 
made  to  extend  over  a  very  long  period,  as  from  the 
statements  made,  and  the  work  attributed  to  them,  we 
must  suppose  them  to  have  done,  the  problem  of  maintain- 
ing for  them  the  identity  of  character  and  style  with  which 
the  investigation  started  becomes  insoluble.  Obviously,  if 
the  writers  are  to  be  regarded  as  "schools,"  it  will  be 
impossible,  as  before,  to  insist  on  minute  criteria  of  language, 
often  descending  to  single  words,  and  the  finest  nuances  of 
expression,  as  infallible  means  of  distinguishing  their  several 

see  Bennett's  Genesis,  Introd.  pp.  23,  32,  37,  52,  etc.  Kuenen  has  a  P, 
with  redactors  (Hex.  pp.  86  ff.). 

1  Pref.  to  Exod.-Lev.  a  Cf.  Oxford  Hexateiieh,  ii.  p.  19. 

3  Ibid.  p.  212.     Cf.  Dillmann,  in  loc.     See  below,  p.  358. 

4  For  a  longer  example,  see  Note  B  on  Cornill's  Decomposition  of  J,  and 
compare  in  full  Cornill's  EinleUung,  pp.  52-53. 

8  See  Note  C  on  the  Views  of  J  and  E,  etc.,  aa  "  Schools."   See  also  below 
on  P,  Chap.  X.  p.  335. 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  207 

contributions.  It  is  possible  to  argue,  however  unreasonably, 
that  an  individual  author  must  be  rigidly  bound  down  to  one 
style,  one  set  of  phrases,  one  idea  or  circle  of  ideas ;  but  this 
will  hardly  apply  to  "  schools,"  lasting  for  centuries,  where, 
within  the  limits  of  a  general  tradition,  there  must,  with 
difference  of  minds,  inevitably  be  wide  diversities  of  culture, 
thought,  and  speech.  We  may  properly  speak,  e.g.,  of  an 
"Anglican,"  a  " Ritschlian,"  or  a  "Cobdenite"  school,  and 
may  mark  how  in  each  the  influence  of  dominant  ideas 
stamps  a  general  resemblance  on  the  style  and  speech  of 
the  members,  but  none  the  less  individual  idiosyncrasies 
will  assert  themselves  in  each  writer.  If,  further,  the 
writers  are  to  be  regarded  as  "  schools,"  the  question  of 
date  assumes  a  new  aspect.  How  far  may  or  do  these 
"  schools "  go  back  ?  Why  must  J  and  E  be  any  longer 
forced  down  to  the  ninth  or  eighth  century  ? " l  Why  must 
the  priestly  narratives  be  of  the  same  age  as  the  priestly 
laws  ?  Delitzsch  was  of  opinion  that  "  the  literary  activity 
of  the  Elohistic  pen  reaches  far  back  to  ancient  times  nearly 
approaching  the  time  of  Moses."  *  Why,  on  this  hypothesis 
should  it  not  be  so  ? 

There  is,  one  cannot  help  feeling,  something  essentially 
mechanical  in  this  idea  of  "  schools  "  of  writers  continuously 
engaged  for  centuries  in  patching,  revising,  tesselatiug, 
resetting,  altering  and  embellishing,  the  work  of  their 
predecessors.  We  are  here  back,  in  fact,  by  another 
route,  and  under  another  name,  to  the  old  "  fragmentary  " 
hypothesis,  thought  so  long  ago  to  have  been  exploded.3 
But  the  striking  thing  about  the  labours  of  these  manifold 
unknowns  is  that  the  product  shows  so  little  trace  of  this 
excessive  fragmentariness  of  its  origin.  The  Pentateuch— 
pre-eminently  the  Book  of  Genesis,  but  even  the  legal  part  * 
— is  undeniably  a  well-planned,  massively-compacted  work. 
Apart  from  the  "  firmly-knit "  character  of  its  story,  it  is 
marked  by  a  unity  of  thought  and  spirit,  is  pervaded  by 

1  Carpenter  allows  that  the  question  of  the  date  of  J  (so  of  the  others) 
has  become  "  increasingly  complex  "  under  the  influence  of  this  new  idea 
(Ilex.  i.  p.  106). 

*  Genesis,  p.  49. 

*  Carpenter  says  with   reference  to  this  newer  theory  of  "schools": 
"This  was  the  truth  that  lay  behind  the  fragtuent-hypotlieais  of  the  older 
criticism  :  is  it  possible  to  re-state  it  in  more  suitable  form  T " — Hex.  L  p.  108. 

*  Ses  below,  pp.  294,  325-26. 


208       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

great  ideas,  is  instinct  with  a  living  purpose,  as  no  other 
book  is.  Its  organic  character  bespeaks  for  it  a  higher 
origin  than  a  concourse  of  literary  atoms.1 

III.  SPECIAL  PROBLEMS  OF  JE:  PLACE  OF  ORIGIN  AND 
EXTENT 

It  is  now  necessary,  in  order  that  the  value  of  the  current 
critical  theories  may  be  thoroughly  tested,  to  investigate  the 
analysis  and  other  questions  connected  with  the  different 
documents  more  in  detail :  and  first  we  consider  the  problems 
involved  in  the  relations  of  J  and  E.  These  problems,  in  our 
view,  all  converge  ultimately  into  one — Are  the  critics  right 
in  distinguishing  two  documents  at  all  ?  To  set  this  question 
in  its  proper  light,  and  reveal  more  clearly  the  serious 
differences  that  emerge  on  fundamental  points,  it  will  be 
advisable  to  look,  first,  at  the  views  entertained  as  to  the 
place  of  origin  of  the  assumed  documents,  and  as  to  their 
extent.  Some  hint  of  the  range  of  these  differences  has 
already  been  given. 

1.  Much  light  is  cast  on  critical  procedure  by  observing 
the  methods  employed  to  determine  the  place  of  origin  of 
the  documents,  with  the  implications  as  to  their  age.  We 
saw  before  that  it  has  become  customary  to  take  for  granted, 
though  without  real  proof,2  that  J  and  E  first  originated,  the 
one  (which  one  is  in  dispute)  in  the  ninth  century,  the  other 
about  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.  It  is  also  very 
generally  held,  and  is  confidently  stated,  that  E  was  a  native 
of  the  Northern  Kingdom,  while  J,  probably,  was  a  native 
of  the  Southern,  or  Judaean  Kingdom.8  The  chief  reasons 
given  for  localising  E  in  Ephraim  are  his  peculiar  interest 
in  the  sacred  places  of  Northern  Israel  (Bethel,  Shechem, 
etc.),  his  exaltation  of  the  house  of  Joseph,  and  his  preference 
in  the  story  of  Joseph  for  Ephraim  over  Judah.  How 
shadowy  and  assumptive  all  this  is,  and  how  inadequate 
as  a  ground  of  separation  of  the  documents,  will  be  evident 
from  the  following  considerations : — 

(1)  In  the  first   place,  there  are  eminent   critics  (e.g., 

1  See  further  in  Chap.  X. 

2  See  above,  p.  73. 

3  Cf.  Dillmann,  Driver  ("relatively  probable,"  Jnlrod.  p.  123),  Addis. 
Carpenter,  etc. 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  209 

Schrader,  Eeusa,  Kuenen,  Kautzscli),  who  place  J  alm>  in 
Northern  Israel,  and  for  precisely  the  same  reason  of  his 
supposed  interest  in  Ephraimitic  shrines.1  The  two  writings, 
therefore,  it  may  be  concluded,  cannot  really  stand  far 
apart  in  this  respect  Kautzsch,  e.g.,  thinks  it  inconceivable 
"  that  a  Judahite,  at  a  time  when  the  temple  of  Solomon 
was  already  in  existence  [note  the  assumption  on  date], 
brought  the  sanctity  of  Shechem,  Bethel,  and  Peniel  into 
the  prominence  they  have  at  Gen.  xii.  6,  xxviii.  13  ff.,  and 
xxxii.  30 ff."8  Yet  the  Judfean  origin  of  J  is  one  of  the 
things  which  Dillrnann,  among  others,  regards  as  "demon- 
strable with  certainty."  s 

(2)  In  the  next  place,  the  whole  reasoning  proceeds  on 
the  assumption  that  the  writings  are  as  late  as  the  ninth  or 
eighth  century,  and  that  the  motive  for  recording  the  move- 
ments and  residences  of  the  patriarchs  is  to  glorify  existing 
sacred  places,  or  exalt  one  branch  of  the  divided  kingdom 
above  the  other.  The  ndivttt  of  the  narratives  might  save 
them  from  this  charge  of  "tendency,"  which  has  really 
nothing  tangible  to  support  it.  There  is  no  trace  of  the 
divided  kingdom,4  or  of  partiality  for  one  side  or  the  other, 
in  the  j>atriarchal  narratives.  The  history  of  Joseph  is 
recorded  with  fulness  and  freshness  by  both  writers. 
Gunkel  takes  strong  ground  on  this  point.  "There  can," 
he  says,  "  be  no  talk  of  a  party -tendency  in  the  two  collec- 
tions for  the  North  or  for  the  South  Kingdom :  they  are  too 
faithful."5  Even  Kuenen  writes:  "It  would  be  incorrect 
to  say  that  the  narratives  in  Genesis  exalt  Joseph  at  the 
expense  of  his  brothers,  and  are  unfriendly  to  Judah.  This 

1  "The  daU,"  says  Carjicnter,  "do  not  appear  to  be  decisive,  and  each 
Wfribilityfmdfl  eminent  advocates.  .  .  .  Critical  judgment  has  consequently 
been  much  divided."— Hex.  i.  pp.  104-5.  Hommel  also  places  J  in  Northern 
Israel  (Ane.  Heb.  Trad.  pp.  2a9-90). 

*  Lit.  of  O.T.,  p.  38.     Kittel  also  thinks  it  "  impossible  to  assert  that  J 
originated  in  Northern   Israel "  (p.  85).     Kautzsch  and   Kuenen  explain 
recalcitrant   phenomena  by  the  hypothesis  of  a  later  Ju<Ia*an   redaction 
(which  Kittel  reject*,  i.  p.  85). 

»0b*n.«,  p.  10. 

4Cf.  (Jtinkel,  Genesis,  p.  Ix,  and  »ee  aliove,  p.  111.  The  older  writers 
justly  laid  stress  on  this  in  evidence  of  date  (e.g.,  Blcek,  Introd.  pp.  291  IT., 
'298  ff.).  It  is  curious  how  little  stress,  for  dilTeivnt  rvasons,  critics  are 
disposed  to  lay  on  the  one  piuvs  •>,'<•  w  hirh  might  be  regarded  as  an  exci  ptiou 
— the  reference  to  the  subjection  of  Kdom  in  Oen.  xxvii.  40.  De  W«tte 
urged  this  as  proof  of  a  late  date,  but  the  inference  is  rejected  by  Uleek, 
Kittel  (i.  p.  88),  Kautzsch  (Lit.  p.  39),  etc. 

•  Ucttesis,  p.  Ix. 

14 


210       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES : 

would  contradict  their  ever  present  idea  that  all  the  tribes 
have  sprung  from  a  single  father,  and  on  the  strength  of  this 
common  descent  are  a  single  people.  .  .  .  Neither  J  nor  E 
takes  sides  with  any  one  of  the  tribes,  or  specifically  for 
or  against  Joseph  or  Judah ;  for  both  alike  occupy  the 
Israelitish  position,  in  the  widest  sense  of  the  word." l  The 
real  reason  why  the  sojournings  of  the  patriarchs  are 
followed  with  such  interest  in  J  and  E  is  simply  that,  in 
the  old  Israelitish  tradition,  Hebron,  -  Beersheba,  Bethel, 
Shechem,  were  believed  to  be  the  real  spots  where  these 
patriarchs  dwelt,  and  built  their  altars.2 

(3)  When,  further,  we  look  into  the  narratives,  we  do 
not  find,  in  fact,  that  they  bear  out  this  idea  of  a  special 
favouritism  in  E  for  localities  in  the  North,  and  in  J  for 
places  in  the  South.  Addis  remarks  on  J's  "  large-hearted 
interest  in  the  myths  (?)  and  sacred  places  both  of  Northern 
Israel  and  of  Judah."3  Abraham's  home  in  J  is  at  Hebron, 
but  his  first  altar  is  built  near  Bethel.4  Latterly,  in  both 
J  and  E,  he  lives  at  Beersheba  (in  South).6  Isaac  also,  in 
both  sources,  lives  at  Beersheba.  J  narrates  the  vision  of 
Jacob  at  Bethel  (with  E),6  his  wrestling  with  the  angel  at 
Peniel,7  his  residence  at  Shechem  (with  E  and  P),8  etc.  E 
also  has  his  stories  about  Bethel,  Shechem,  and  Beersheba, 
but  he  records  Jacob's  residence  in  "  the  vale  of  Hebron  " 
(South),9  as,  earlier,  he  had  shared  in  the  story  of  the  offering 
of  Isaac  on  Mount  Moriah.10  As  little  are  we  disposed  to 

1  Hex.  pp.  230-32.  He  thinks  he  finds  significance,  however,  in  the  fact 
that  Joseph  was  "crowned"  of  his  brethren,  etc. 

3  "  In  weighing  these  accounts,"  says  Kueuen,  "for  our  present  purpose, 
we  must  remember  that  the  writers  were  not  free  to  choose  whatever  spots 
they  liked.  Hebron  was  Abraham's  '  territorial  cradle,'  and  Beersheba 
Isaac's.  It  needs  no  explanation  or  justification,  therefore,  when  they 
make  the  two  patriarchs  dwell  respectively  in  these  two  places  "  ;  but,  he 
adds,  "we  have  to  give  some  account  of  why  Abraham  is  transplanted  to 
Beersheba."— Sear.  p.  231.  But  why?  if,  as  both  J  and  E  declare,  he 
actually  went  there  ?  The  lives  of  Abraham  and  Isaac  were  mainly  spent  in 
the  South,  that  of  Jacob  in  the  middle  of  Palestine. 

8  Hex.  i.  p.  liv.  4  Gen.  xii.  8.  8  Gen.  xxi.  33  ;  xxii.  19. 

8  Gen.  xxviii.  10  ff.        7  Gen.  xxxii.  24  ff.         8  Gen.  xxxiv. 

9  Gen  xxxvii.  14.     Though  it  is  clear  from  the  context  that  Jacob's 
home  was  not  at  Shechem  (vers.  12,  13),  yet  simply  on  the  ground  that  it 
mentions   Hebron,  this  verse  is  treated  by  Kuenen,  with  others,  as  an 
interpolation    (Hex.  pp.    230,    231).     Carpenter  says  flatly:  "Of  Hebron, 
whHi    belonged    peculiarly    to    Judah,    no    notice    is    taken." — Hex.    i. 
p.  116. 

'"  Gen.  xxiL 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  211 

trust  the  critic's  "  feeling  "  for  an  "  Ephraimitic  tinge  "  in  E. 
when  we  find,  e.g.,  one  authority  on  this  "  tinge  "  (Kautzsch) 
declaring  that  "  it  [E]  no  longer  conveys  the  impression 
of  a  triumphant  outlook  on  a  glorious  future,  but  rather 
that  of  a  retrospect  on  a  bygone  history,  in  which  were 
many  gloomy  experiences ; " l  and  another  (Kittel)  assuring 
us  that  "the  whole  tone  of  E  bears  witness  to  a  certain 
satisfaction  of  the  national  consciousness,  and  joy  over  what 
has  been  won."* 

(4)  Finally,  if  anything  were  lacking  to  destroy  our 
confidence  in  this  theory  of  tendencies  of  J  and  E,  it  would 
be  supplied  by  the  interpretations  that  are  given  of  particular 
incidents  in  the  narrative.  It  strains  our  faith  to  breaking- 
point  to  be  asked  to  believe  that  the  interest  of  a  prophetic 
writer  like  E,  of  the  days  of  Amos  and  Hosea,  in  Bethel  and 
Beersheba,  arose  from  the  fact  that  these  places  were  the 
then  famous  centres  of  (idolatrous)  worship  (cf.  Amos 
v.  5;  viii.  14;  Hos.  iv.  15);*  or  that  Gen.  xxviii.  22  is 
intended  to  explain  and  sanction  the  custom  of  paying 
tithes  at  the  calf-shrine  at  Bethel;4  or  that  Hebron  was 
preferred  as  Abraham's  residence  because  it  was  "the 
ancient  Judaean  capital"  (Kittel),6  or  had  become  "the 
great  Judaic  sanctuary  "  (Driver).'  In  the  view  of  one  set 
of  critics,  Gen.  xxxviii.  is  a  bitter  mockery  of  Judah  (J 
therefore  is  Northern);7  according  to  another,  it  is  a  tribal 
history  written  expressly  to  favour  Judah  (J  therefore  is 
Southern).8  Kautzsch  is  of  opinion  that  "at  Ex.  xxxii. 
1  ff.  there  is  in  all  probability  a  Judahite  condemnation  of 
the  Ephraimite  bull-worship  " ;  *  others  see  in  the  narrative 
an  Ephraimitic  condemnation  of  the  same  practice ; 10  Kuenen 
thinks  it  glances  at  a  claim  of  the  Northern  priests  to  a 

1  Lit.  ofO.T.,  p.  44.  *  Hist,  of  Jlebt.  i.  p.  88. 

•  Carpenter,  Hex.  i.  p.  116  ;  cf.  Driver,  Introd.  p.  118. 

4  Driver,  ibid.  p.  122 ;  Dillmann,  Kittel,  Bennett,  etc.  See  above,  p.  185. 
What  of  J"s  motive  in  the  references  to  Bethel  and  Beersheba  f 

•  Hitt.  i.  p.  83.  •  Introd.  p.  118. 
1  Thus  Keu.ss,  Schrader,  Kenan,  etc. 

•Thus  Kittel  (i.  p.  83),  etc.  Cf.  Kuenen,  Hex.  p.  232;  Westphal, 
Sources,  ii.  p.  259  ;  Carpenter,  Hex.  i.  p.  105. 

•  Lit.  o/O.T.,p.  38. 

10  Dillmann,  who  thinks  a  North  Israelite  could  not  have  framed  this 
protest  against  Jeroboam's  bull-worship  (Krod.-Lev.  p.  332).  Kittel  differ* 
(i.  p.  89).  It  should  be  noticed  that  KauUsch,  Dillmann,  Kittel,  etc., 
ascribe  the  main  story  in  Ex.  xxxii.  to  J  ;  others,  as  Westphal,  as 
confidently  give  it  to  E. 


212       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

descent  from  Aaron.1  So  ad  libitum.  When  one  re- 
members that  it  is  chiefly  on  the  ground  of  these  supposed 
"  mirrorings  "  of  later  events  that  the  narratives  are  placed 
where  they  are  in  date,2  one  begins  to  see  the  precariousness 
of  this  part  of  the  critical  structure.  Thus  far  nothing  has 
been  established  as  to  place  or  time  of  origin,  or  distinct 
authorship  of  the  documents. 

2.  A  second  problem  of  much  importance  in  its 
bearings  on  the  possibility  of  a  critical  distinction  of  J  and 
E  is  that  of  the  extent  of  the  supposed  documents.  The 
consideration  of  Genesis  may  be  reserved.  There  is  agree- 
ment that  the  J  narrative  in  Genesis  begins  with  chap.  ii. 
36,  and,  in  union  with  other  sources,  continues  throughout 
the  book,  and  into  Exodus.  E,  on  the  other  hand,  though 
some  find  traces  of  its  presence  earlier,3  is  understood  to 
enter  clearly  first  in  chap.  xx.  With  Exodus  iii.,  the 
criterion  of  the  divine  names  fails,  after  which  it  is  allowed, 
on  all  hands,  that  the  discrimination  is  exceedingly  difficult, 
and  often  impossible.  In  the  words  of  Addis,  "  In  other 
books  of  the  Hexateuch  [after  Genesis]  the  Jahvist  and 
the  Elohist  are  rather  fused  than  pieced  together,  and 
discrimination  between  the  two  documents  is  often  im- 
possible." 4  In  their  union,  however,  it  is  commonly  agreed 
that  the  presence  of  the  two  documents  can  be  traced,  not 
only  through  Exodus  and  Numbers  (in  small  measure  in 
Deuteronomy)  but  through  Joshua — that  Joshua,  in  fact, 
is  an  integral  part  of  the  total  work  now  called  the 
"  Hexateuch."  The  validity  of  this  conclusion  will  occupy 
us  immediately. 

Beyond  this  rises  another  question,  now  keenly  exercising 
the  minds  of  scholars,  viz.,  whether  there  must  not  be 

1  Hex.  p.  245 ;  cf.  Van  Hoonacker,  Le  Saeerdoee,  p.  136.  See  above, 
p.  122. 

J  Cf.  Carpenter,  Hex.  i.  p.  107 ;  Kuenen,  Hex.  p.  226.  See  above, 
p.  74  ;  also  Gunkel,  Genesis,  p.  Ixii. 

*  See  below,  p.  217. 

4  Hex.  i.  p.  xxxi.  McFadyen  says  similarly:  "After  Ex.  vi.  it  is 
seldom  possible  to  distinguish  with  much  confidence  between  the  Jehovist 
and  the  Elohist,  as  they  have  so  much  in  common." — Mess,  of  Historians, 
p.  18.  The  impossibility  is  owned  by  critics  (as  Eautzsch  and  Socin)  in 
considerable  parts  of  Genesis  as  well.  Strack  says  generally  :  "  Since  J  and 
E  are  on  the  whole  (im  Groxsen  und  Ganzen)  similar  to  one  another,  it  is 
often  no  longer  possible  to  separate  what  originally  belongs  to  E  and  what 
originally  belongs  to  J." — Die  Bilcher  Genesis,  etc.  ("Handkommentar," 
i.,  ii.),  Introd.  p.  rviii. 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  213 

recognised  a  still  further  continuation  of  these  documents — 

•  I    and  E — into  the   Books  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  even 
Kings,     Such  a   possibility  was   early  hinted   at,1  but  the 
newer  tendency  to  resolve  J  and  E  into  "  schools  "  has  led 
to  a  revival  of  the  idea,2  and   to  its  adoption  by  many 
critical  scholars.     Cornill  and  Budde  have  no  doubt  about 
it ;    Moore    adopts    it    in    his    Commentary    on   Judges ; 
Westphal  goes  so  far  as  to  make  it  a  chief  ground  in  his 
determination    of    the    dates    of    the    documents.8      E.g., 
Cornill  discerns  J  in  1  Kings  "  with  perfect  certainty " ;  * 
the  traces  of  E,  he  thinks,  arc  slight  after  the  story  of  the 
death  of  SauL     These  conclusions,  with   good   reason,  do 
not  commend   themselves   to   other   scholars,  so   that   the 
camp  remains  here  also  divided.6     The   hypothesis  has  a 
value  as  showing  the  precarious  grounds  on  which  writers 
often  build  their  critical  "  certainties." 

Returning  to  Joshua,  we  may  briefly  test  the  assertion 
that  the  J  and  E  documents  are  continued  into  this  book, 
and  that  Joshua  forms  with  the  Pentateuch  a  single  larger 
work.  The  question  of  "Pentateuch"  or  "Hexateuch" 
need  not  be  discussed  at  length ;  we  touch  on  it  only  as 
far  as  relates  to  our  subject.  Addis,  however,  speaks  far 
too  strongly  when  he  declares  that  the  unity  of  Joshua 
with  the  other  five  books  "is  acknowledged  by  all  who 
admit  the  composite  character  of  the  Pentateuch." fl  This 
is  by  no  means  the  case.  Even  Cornill  says :  "  Many  now 
speak  of  a  Hexateuch.  Joshua,  nevertheless,  presents  an 
essentially  different  literary  physiognomy  from  that  of  the 
Pentateuch,  so  that  it  appears  to  me  more  correct  to  treat 
the  latter  by  itself,  and  the  Book  of  Joshua  as  an  appendix 
to  it." 7  There  are,  in  fact,  tolerably  strong  indications  of 

*  tendency  among  recent  critics  to  separate  Joshua  again 
from   the   Pentateuch,  and   regard  it  as  a  more  or  less 

1  Grambcrg  (1880) ;  Schrader  (1869). 

•  Cf.  Westphal  on  the  views  of  Ed.  Meyer  (1884)  and  Bruston  (1885)  in 
Sonreei  du  Pent,  ii.  pp.  255  If.     Stade  thought  he  discovered  trace*  of  K 
in  above  works  ;  Boh  me  traces  of  J,  etc. 

'  Sovrcet,  ii.  p.  256. 

4  Einleiluny,  pp.  117,  121. 

•  Kittel  acutely  criticised  the  theory  in  Stud,  wut  Krit.  1891  (pp.  44  ff.) ; 
<-f.  his //id.  ii.  pp.  16 ff.     Kuonen,  Knutzach  (Lit.  0/0.7.,  pp.  27,  287-39). 
Driver  (Introd.  pp.  171,  184),  Kbnig,  IL  P.  Smith  (Samuel,  p.  «ii),  etc., 
reject  it. 

•  Hex.  pp.  xir,  xxii.  T  Einlfit.  p.  86. 


214       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

independent  work.1  For  such  a  view  also  there  are  many 
cogent  grounds.  Cornill  gives  as  one  reason  that  the 
sources  are  quite  differently  worked  up  in  the  Book  of 
Joshua  from  what  they  are  elsewhere.  In  the  narrative 
portions  they  are  fused  together  so  as  to  be  ordinarily 
inseparabla  The  language,  too,  presents  peculiarities. 
Even  in  the  P  parts,  as  will  be  seen  immediately,  it  is 
doubtful  if  the  sections  are  from  the  same  hand  or  hands 
as  in  the  other  books.  The  book  has,  also,  according  to  the 
critics,  been  subjected  to  a  Deuteronomic  revision,2  which, 
curiously,  was  not  extended  (or  only  slightly)  to  the  earlier 
books.8 

It  is  beyond  doubt,  at  least,  that,  in  the  separation  of 
the  sources  in  Joshua,  the  critics  continually  find  them- 
selves involved  in  inextricable  difficulties.  With  respect 
particularly  to  J  and  E,  it  has  become  not  simply  a 
question  of  whether  J  and  E  can  be  severed  (admittedly 
they  can  not),  but  of  whether  J  and  E  are  present  in  the 
book  at  all.  Wellhausen  came  to  the  conclusion  that  J  was 
wholly  absent,4  and  Steuernagel  more  recently  has  affirmed 
the  same  opinion.6  "The  original  scope  and  significance 
of  E"  are  admitted  by  Carpenter  to  be  "hardly  less 
difficult  to  determine."6  The  high-water  mark  of  his 

1  Cf.  the  views  of  Wellhausen,  Compos,  d.  Hex.  pp.  116-17  ;  Carpenter, 
Hex.  i.  pp.  178-79 ;  Bennett,  Primer  of  Bible,  p.  90 ;  cf.  his  Joshua 
("Polychrome  Bible"),  p.  44:  "Perhaps  the  Joshua  sections  of  JED  and 
P  were  separated  from  the  preceding  sections  before  the  latter  were 
combined  to  form  the  Pentateuch  "  (or  perhaps  never  formed  part  of  them). 

3  That  is,  if  "  revision  "  is  the  proper  word,  and  not  rather  "  invention." 
If,  e.g.,  the  incident  of  the  reading  of  the  law  on  Mount  Ebal  in  Josh.  viii. 
30-35  did  not  happen,  it  was  simply  invention  on  the  basis  of  Deut.  xxvii. 
The  Deuteronomic  reviser  is  called  D2  to  distinguish  him  from  the  author 
of  Deuteronomy  (D1).  He  belongs  to  the  D  "school,"  and  writes  a 
similar  style. 

3  On  supposed  Denteronomic  traces  in  the  earlier  books,   see  below, 
pp.  254-55. 

4  Comp.  d.  Hex.  p.  116.     Kittel's  view  of  the  matter  is:    "The  com- 
paratively few  traces  which  point  at  all  decisively  to  J  frequently  allow  of 
the  assumption  that  they  have  no  longer  precisely  the  same  form  as  when 
they  came  from  the  author's  pen.     E  is  in  almost  the  same  case :  of  this 
source,  too,  there  are  only  a  few  remnants  in  the  Book  of  Joshua." — Hist, 
of  Hebs.  i.  p.  263. 

8  Carpenter  notes  that  Steuernagel's  Das  Buch  Josua  invites  comment, 
"for  his  results  vary  very  widely  from  those  already  set  forth.  ...  In 
regard  to  J,  Steuernagel  returns  to  the  view  of  Wellhausen  and  Meyer  that 
it  recognised  no  Joshua,"  etc. — Hex.  ii.  p.  318.  Thus  theories  chase  each 
other  like  clouds  in  the  sky. 

•  Ibid.  ii.  p.  308. 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  215 

assurance  is  reached  in  the  statement:  "Budde,  Kittel, 
Albere,  and  Bennett  have  all  concurred  in  believing  that 
the  main  elements  of  J  and  E  are  not  rlw/iii.wd  beyond 
recognition,  though  their  results  do  not  always  run  side 
by  side."1  The  separation  of  the  P  sections  in  Joshua  at 
tirst  sight  seems  easier,  but  in  detail  the  difficulties  are 
nearly  as  insuperable,  and  of  a  kind  that  set  theorising  at 
defiance.  "  The  inquiry "  (as  to  "  the  relation  of  the  P 
sections  to  the  rest  of  the  book  "),  Carpenter  admits,  "  is  full 
of  difficulty,  and  the  seemingly  conflicting  facts  have  been 
differently  interpreted  in  different  critical  schools."2  The 
language,  as  already  said,  is  markedly  different.  "  In  chape. 
i-xiL,  xxiii.,  xxiv.,"  says  Professor  Bennett,  "there  are 
only  a  few  short  paragraphs  and  sentences  in  the  style  of 
P,  and  most  of  these  are  rather  due  to  an  editor  than 
derived  from  the  Priestly  Code."8  Still  more  instructive 
is  the  fact,  pointed  out  by  Professor  G.  A.  Smith,  that  "  in 
the  Book  of  Joshua  P  does  not  occupy  the  regulative 
position,  nor  supply  the  framework,  as  it  does  in  the 
Pentateuch."*  As  Wellhausen  puts  it:  "Without  a  pre- 
ceding history  of  the  conquest,  these  [P]  sections  are  quite 
in  the  air:  they  cannot  be  taken  as  telling  a  continuous 
story  of  their  own,  but  presuppose  the  Jehovistic- 
Deuteronomic  work.  .  .  .  We  have  already  shown  that 
the  Priestly  Code  in  Joshua  is  simply  the  filling  up  of 
the  Jehovistic-Deuteronomic  narrative."6  As  interesting 
illustrations  of  the  stylistic  perplexities,  reference  may  be 
made  to  the  two  important  chapters — xxii.  and  xxiv.  The 
phraseology  in  chap.  xxii.  9-34,  "  is  in  the  main  that  of  P," 
says  Dr.  Driver  ("almost  a  cento  of  Fs  phrases,"  says 

1  Hex.  ii.  p.  806  (italics  ours). 

•  Ibid.  p.  315.     /,'.</.,  •'  If  xvi.  1-3  is  rightly  assigned  to  J,  a  probability 
ia  established  that  it  may  have  contained  other  geographical  descriptions, 
now  perhaps  absorbed  into  P's  more  detailed  survey.     But  it  appears  to  be 
beyond  the  power  of  any  critical  method  to  discover  the  clue*  to  their 
separation"  (pp.  807-8). 

•  Primer,  p.  90.     The  P  sections,  Carpenter  says,  "show  several  curious 
features,  and   doubts  have  consequently  be«»n  expreaspd  concerning  their 
original  charterer  (r.g  ,  by  Wellhausen).  — /far.  i.  n.  178. 

4  Art.  "Joshua"  in  Diet,  of  KMf,  ii.  p.  784.  Similarly  Bennett  says: 
"In  the  Pentateuch  P  is  used  as  framework;  in  Joshua  JED." — Book  of 
Joshua  ("Polychrome  Bible"),  p.  45. 

•  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  357,  «85.     A*  shown  later  (Chap.  X.),  Wellhausen 
regards  the  "  main  stock  "  of  the  Priestly  narrative  as  coaxing  with  the 
.;,..;.,  Of  Mi 


216       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

Carpenter),  "  but  the  narrative  does  not  display  throughout 
the  characteristic  style  of  P,  and  in  some  parts  of  it  there 
occur  expressions  which  are  not  those  of  P."  He  proceeds : 
"Either  a  narrative  of  P  has  been  combined  with  elements 
from  another  source  in  a  manner  which  makes  it  difficult  to 
effect  a  satisfactory  analysis,  or  the  whole  is  the  work  of 
a  distinct  writer,  whose  phraseology  is  in  part  that  of  P, 
but  not  entirely." l  Wellhausen,  on  the  other  hand,  thinks 
it  is  P's  wholly  (but  not  the  P  of  the  earlier  books).  Addis, 
with  Kuenen,  assumes  that  "  it  is  a  late  production  in  the 
school  and  after  the  manner  of  P."2  Chap,  xxiv.,  in 
turn,  is  assigned  generally  to  E ;  yet,  says  Dr.  Driver, "  it 
might  almost  be  said  to  be  written  from  a  standpoint 
approaching  (in  this  respect)  that  of  DV 8  Addis 
assumes  a  Deuteronomic  revision,  and  abundant  inter- 
polation.4 What,  one  is  tempted  to  ask,  can  such  criteria 
avail  ? 

Not  much  support,  we  think  it  will  be  felt,  is  to  be  got 
from  the  Book  of  Joshua  for  an  original  distinction  of  J  and 
E — if  for  their  existence  in  that  book  at  all.  When  it  is 
added  that  the  Samaritans  seem  from  the  beginning  to  have 
had,  in  Buhl's  words,  "  outside  of  the  Canon  an  independent 
reproduction  of  the  Book  of  Joshua,"6  it  may  be  realised 
that  the  reasons  for  affirming  a  "  Ifexateuch  "  are  not  so 
conclusive  as  is  generally  assumed. 

IV.  ARE  J  AND  E  TWO  OR  ONE?    DIFFICULTIES  OF 
SEPARATION 

The  decisive  grounds  for  the  separation  of  J  and  E  must 
be  sought  for,  if  anywhere,  in  the  Book  of  Genesis,  where 
the  divine  names  are  still  distinguished.  It  is  important 

1  Introd.  pp.  112-13.  2  Hex.  ii.  p.  473.  »  Introd.  p.  115. 

4  Hex.  i.  p.  233.     It  is  a  curious  observation  of  Carpenter's  that  "the 
Deuteronomic  editors  of  the  national  histories  during  the  exile  were  con- 
temporary with  the  priestly  schools  of  Ezekiel  and  his  successors,  and  some 
interchange  of  phraseology  would   be  only  natural "  (this  to  account  for 
occasional   appearances   of  P   in   D   passages). — Hex.   ii.   p.    815.     It  is 
interesting  to  see  how  the  theory  of  JED  and  P  schools  extending  into  the 
exile  tends  to  work  round  to  a  theory  of  contemporary  authorship  for  much 
of  the  matter.     But  may  not  the  same  thing  be  assumed  for  early  co-opera- 
tion in  the  production  of  the  book  *    See  befow,  pp.  375-6. 

5  Canon  of  O.T.,  p.  41.     On  the  historicity  of  Joshua,  see  Appendix  to 
chapter. 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  217 

for  the  purpose  of  our  inquiry  here  to  remember  how  the 
discrimination  of  J  and  E  was  originally  brought  about. 
It  will  be  recalled l  that,  till  the  time  of  Hupfeld,  E  was 
commonly  regarded  as  an  integral  part  of  P — a  proof  that, 
notwithstanding  their  differences,  even  these  documents  are 
not  so  far  apart  as  many  suppose.2  Then  E  was  separated 
from  P  on  the  ground  of  its  greater  literary  affinities  with 
J,  and,  not  unnaturally,  in  view  of  the  difference  in  the 
divine  names,  continued  to  be  regarded  as  a  distinct  writing 
from  the  latter.  Now  the  question  recurs — Is  it  really 
distinct?  The  only  actually  weighty  ground  for  the  dis- 
tinction is  the  difference  of  usage  in  the  names,  and  that 
peculiarity  must  be  considered  by  itself.  Apart  from  this 
it  is  our  purpose  to  show  that  the  strongest  reasons  speak 
for  the  unity  of  the  documents,  while  the  hypothesis  of 
distinction  is  loaded  with  improbabilities  which  amount,  in 
the  sum,  well-nigh  to  impossibilities. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  then,  there  is  no  clear  proof  that  E 
ever  did  exist  as  a  continuous  independent  document.  It 
has  a  broken,  intermittent  character,  which  excites  doubts, 
even  in  Wellhausen.*  Roughly,  after  Gen.  xx.-xxi,  where 
the  document  is  supposed  abruptly  to  enter,4  we  have  only 
fragments  till  chap,  xxxi.,  then  again  broken  pieces  till 

1  See  above,  p.  196. 

*  Bleek,  Cave,  Lange,  Perowne,  etc.,  retained  the  older  view.  An  inter- 
esting series  of  equations  might  be  drawu  up  along  this  line,  based  on  the 
axiom  that  things  that  are  equal  to  the  same  tiling  are  equal  to  one  another, 
weakening  somewhat  the  force  of  the  ordinary  documentary  theory.  If,  r.g., 
E  resembles  P  sufficiently  to  have  been  regarded  by  moat  critics  till  Hupfeld, 
and  by  many  since,  as  imrt  of  P,  and  E  is  at  the  same  time  practically  in-li.s- 
tinguiahable  stylistically  from  J,  an  obvious  conclusion  follows  us  to  the 
relations  of  J  and  I'.  So  in  other  places  approximations  may  be  shown  to 
exist  between  E  and  D,  D  and  J,  and  even  between  JE  and  P,  D  and  P. 
See  below,  pp.  253  if. 

'  Wellhausi-n  says  :  "  Not  merely  is  the  Klohi.it  in  his  matter  and  in  his 
manner  of  looking  at  things  most  closely  akin  to  the  Jehovist ;  his  docu- 
ment has  come  down  to  us,  as  NoldeKe  wan  the  first  to  pcrc>  ive,  only  in 
extracts  embodied  in  the  Jehovist  narrative."  And  in  a  note  :  "  What 
Kuenen  {>oints  out  is,  that  certain  elements  assigned  by  me  to  the  Elohist 
are  not  fragments  of  a  once  independent  whole,  but  interpolated  and 
parasitic  additions.  What  effect  this  demonstration  may  have  on  the  judg- 
ment we  form  of  the  Eluhist  himself  is  as  yet  uncertain."— Hist,  of  Itrael, 
pp.  7,  8. 

4  Traces  of  E  are  thought  by  some  to  be  found  in  chap.  xv.  (Wellhau*en, 
Dillmann,  etc.).  Dill  man  n  would  attribute  to  E  part  of  the  material  in  chapa. 
iv.  17  tr. )  ;  vi.  (1-4)  and  xiv. ;  but  he  is  not  generally  followed  in  this.  Cf. 
Kuenen,  Hoc.  p.  149. 


218       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

chaps,  xl.-xlii.,  in  the  life  of  Joseph,  and  a  few  portions  there- 
after, chiefly  in  chaps,  xlv.  and  I.1 

2.  Next,  doubt,  and  more  than  doubt,  is  awakened  by 
the  thoroughly  parallel  character  of  the  narratives.  As  was 
shown  at  an  earlier  stage,2  the  two  supposed  documents  are 
similar  in  character,  largely  parallel  in  matter,  and,  as 
proved  by  their  complete  interfusion  in  many  places, 
must  often  have  been  nearly  verbally  identical.  A  few 
testimonies  on  this  important  point  may  not  be  out  of 
place. 

"  In  the  main,"  says  Wellhausen,  "  JE  is  a  composition 
out  of  these  two  parallel  books  of  history,"  adding,  "  We  see 
how  uncommonly  similar  these  two  history  books  must  have 
been."8 

"  The  two  books,"  says  Addis,  "  evidently  proceeded  in 
parallel  lines  of  narrative,  and  it  is  often  hard — nay 
impossible — to  say  whether  a  particular  section  of  the 
Hexateuch  belongs  to  the  Jahvist  or  the  Elohist."  4  "  Two 
accounts  of  Joseph's  history,  closely  parallel  on  the  whole, 
but  discordant  in  important  details  (?) 5  have  been  mingled 
together."  * 

"  It  [JE],"  says  Kautzsch,  "  must  have  run  in  almost 
unbroken  parallelism  with  the  Jahwist  in  the  patriarchal 
histories,  the  history  of  the  Exodus,  and  of  the  conquest  of 
Canaan."  7 

"  In  the  history  of  the  patriarchs,"  says  Dillmann, 
"  especially  in  that  of  Jacob  and  Joseph,  it  [E]  shows  itself 
most  closely  related  to  [J] ;  so  much  so  that  most  of  its 
narratives  from  chap,  xxvii.  onwards  have  their  perfect 
parallels  in  [J]."8 

After  this,  it  does  not  surprise  us  that  an  able  scholar 
like  Klostermann — at  one  time  a  supporter  of  the  usual 
critical  hypothesis — was  so  impressed  with  the  similar 
character  and  close  relation  of  these  "  throughout  parallel " 
narratives  as  to  be  led  to  break  with  the  current  theory 

1  Colenso,  so  far  as  he  accepted  Hupfeld's  E,  did  not  regard  it  as  independ- 
ent, but  identified  it  with  J.  See  above,  p.  199. 

a  See  above,  p.  71. 

8  Comp.  d.  Hex.  p.  22.  It  lias  already  been  seen  that  Wellhausen  extends 
this  parallel,  as  regards  matter,  to  P  (Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  295,  318).  Cf.  above, 
p.  107  ;  but  specially  see  below,  pp.  344  ff. 

4  Hex.  p.  liii.  5  See  below,  p.  237.  8  Hex.  p   xlix. 

•'Lit.  o/O.T.,p.  43. 

8  Genesis,  p.  11.     In  a  similar  strain  Driver,  Kiinig,  Strack,  Gtnkel,  etc. 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  219 

altogether,  and  to  recast  his  whole  view  of  the  origin  of  the 
Pentateuch.1 

3.  Again,   the  marked   stylistic  resemblance  of    J    and 
£    speaks    strongly    against    their    being    regarded    as 
separate  documents.     On  this  point  it  may  be  sufficient  at 
present  to  quote  Dr.  Driver.     "  Indeed,"  he  says,  "  stylistic 
criteria  alone  would  not  generally  suffice  to  distinguish  J 
and  £ ;  though,  when  the  distinction  has  been  effected  by 
other  means,  slight  differences  of  style  appear  to  disclose 
themselves."8    How  slight   they  are    will    be   afterwards 
seen. 

4.  The  force  of  these  considerations  is  greatly  enhanced 
when  we  observe  the  intimate  fusion  and  dose  interrelations 
of  the  documents,  and  the  impossibility  of  separating  them 
without  complete  disintegration  of  the  narrative.     The  facts 
here,  as  elsewhere,  are  not  disputed.8    "  The  mutual  relation 
of  J  and  £,"  Kuenen  confesses,  "  is  one  of  the  most  vexed 
questions  of  the  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch." 4     "  It  must," 
he  says  again,  "be  admitted  that  the  resemblance  between 
£  and   the   narratives  now   united   with  it  is  sometimes 
bewilderingly  close,  so  that  when  the  use  of  Elohini  does 
not  put  us  on  the  track,  we  are  almost  at  a  loss  for  means 
of    carrying    the    analysis    through."5     "There    is    much 
difference  of  opinion,"  acknowledges  Addis,  "  on  the  contents 
of  J  and  £  considered  separately :   the  problem   becomes 
more  difficult  when  we  pass  beyond  Genesis  to  the  later 
books  of  the  Hexateuch,  and  to  a  great  extent  the  problem 
may   prove  insoluble."9     The    close    interrelation  of  the 
several  narratives  is  not  less  perplexing.     This  interrela- 
tion appears  all  through — e.g.t  the  very  first  words  of  Gen. 
xx.,  "  And  Abraham  journeyed  from  thence"  connect  with  the 
preceding  narrative ;  the  difficulties  of  chap.  xxi.  1-7  (birth 
of  Isaac),  in  which  J,  £,  and  P  are  concerned,  cau  only  be 
got  over  by  the  assumption  that  "  all  three  sources,  J,  K, 

1  Cf.  his  Der  Pentateuch,  pp.  10,  52-58.     On  Klostermann,  ne«  farther 
below,  pp.  227-29,  345. 

*  JitirotL  p.  126;  cf.  p.  13:  "Other  phraseological  criteria  (bendes  the 
name*)  are  slight."    Cf.  Colenso,  quoted  above,  p.199  ;  and  Hnpfeld,  below, 
p.  234.    Dr.  Driver  himself  speaks  on  the  duality  of  the  documents  with  con- 
siderable reserve,  though  "  he  must  own  that  he  has  a!  way  rueii  from  the 
study  of  JE  with  the  conviction  that  it  is  enrnnorite  ''  (p.  11  A). 

*  The  notes  to  Kautzsch  and  Socin's  analysis  of  Gmtmt  art  here  very 
instructive. 

*  Hex.  p.  64.  •  Ibid.  p.  144.  •  I/ex,  p, 


220      DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

and  P  seem  to  have  contained  the  account  of  the  biith 
of  Isaac  "  l — but  it  is  at  its  maximum  in  the  history  of 
Joseph.2  Illustrations  will  occur  as  we  proceed.3  The  usual 
way  of  dealing  with  these  difficulties  is  by  assuming  that 
sections  in  J  parallel  to  E,  and  sections  in  E  parallel  to  J, 
once  existed  (so  of  P),  but  were  omitted  in  the  combined 
work.  This,  if  established,  would  immensely  strengthen  the 
proof  of  parallelism — would,  in  fact,  practically  do  away  with 
the  necessity  for  assuming  the  existence  of  two  histories ;  but 
the  hypothesis,  to  the  extent  required,  is  incapable  of  proof, 
and  its  assumption  only  complicates  further  an  already  too 
complicated  problem.4 

5.  Finally,  the  argument  for  unity  is  confirmed  by  the 
violent  expedients  which  are  found  necessary  to  make  the 
opposite  hypothesis  workable.  We  have  specially  in  view 
here  the  place  given,  and  the  functions  ascribed,  to  that 
convenient,  but  most  unsatisfactory,  appendage  of  the  critical 
theory  —  the  Redactor.  The  behaviour  of  this  remark- 
able individual — or  series  of  individuals  (II1,  E2,  E3,  etc.) — 
is  one  of  the  most  puzzling  features  in  the  whole  case.  At 
times  he  (E)  puts  his  sections  side  by  side,  or  alternates 
them,  with  little  alteration;  again  he  weaves  them 
together  into  the  most  complicated  literary  webs ;  yet  again 
he  "works  them  up"  till  the  separate  existence  of  the 
documents  is  lost  in  the  blend.6  At  one  time,  as  Kloster- 
mann  says,  he  shows  an  almost  "demonic  art"8  in  com- 
bining and  relating ;  at  another,  an  incapacity  verging  on 
imbecility.  At  one  moment  he  is  phenomenally  alert  in 
smoothing  out  difficulties,  correcting  mistakes,  and  inter- 
polating harmonistic  clauses;  at  another,  he  leaves  the 
most  glaring  contradictions,  in  the  critics'  view,  to  stand 

1  Oxf.  Hex.  ii.  p.  29  ;  see  below,  p.  352. 

2  Cf.  Addis  and  Dillmann  above. 

*Cf.,  e.g.,  on  the  analysis  of  Gen.  xxii.  and  Gen.  xxviii.  10.  fT.,  below, 
pp.  234-35. 

4  Cf.  below,  Chap.  X.  pp.  343,  348-9,  362. 

5  It  is  customary  to   speak  of  the    Hebrew  writers  as  if  they  were 
scrupulously  careful  simply  to  reproduce  the  material  at  their  disposal — 
combining,  re-arranging,  but  not  re-writing.     That,  if  the  critics  are  right, 
can  only  be  accepted  with  much  qualitication.     P,  on  Wellhausen's  theory, 
must  have  re-written  the  history.     According  to  Kuenen,  the  "legends" 
have  "  been  worked  up  in  one  way  by  one  writer  and  another  by  another 
...  so  often  as  to  be  notably  modified,  or  even  completely  transformed. — 
Hex.  p.  38  (on  the  process  in  Joshua,  cf.  p.  158). 

•  Pentateuch,  p.  36. 


L  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  221 

side  by  side.     Now  he  copies  J's  style,  now  D's,  now  P's.1 
A  serviceable,  but  somewhat  unaccountable  personage  1 

V.  THE  PROBLEM  OP  THE  DIVINE  NAMES  IN  J  AND  E 

The  crux  of  the  question  of  the  distinction  of  documents 
lies,  it  will  be  admitted,  in  the  use  of  the  divine  names  in 
Genesis,  and  this  problem,  so  far  as  it  concerns  J  and  E — 
P  stands  on  a  somewhat  different  basis  *  —  must  now 
seriously  engage  our  attention. 

1.  The  first  thing  to  be  done  is  to  ascertain  the  facts, 
and  here,  once  more,  we  believe,  it  will  be  found  that 
the  case  is  not  quite  so  simple  as  it  is  ordinarily  represented 
to  be.  The  broad  statement  is  not  to  be  questioned  that 
there  are  certain  sections  in  the  narrative  attributed  to 
JE  in  which  the  divine  name  "Jehovah"  is  preponder- 
atingly  used,  and  certain  other  sections  in  which  the  name 
"  Elohira  "  (God)  is  chiefly  used.  It  is  this  which  constitutes 
the  problem.  We  must  beware,  however,  of  exaggeration 
even  here.  When,  e.g.,  Dr.  Driver  says  that  in  the 
narrative,  Gen.  xii.  10-20,  "  the  term  Jehovah  is  uniformly 
employed," *  it  would  not  readily  occur  to  the  reader  that 
"  uniformly "  in  this  instance  means  only  once.  The  truth 
is,  as  we  soon  discover,  that  no  absolute  rule  about  the  use  of 
the  names  can  be  laid  down.  Even  eliminating  those 
instances  in  which  the  "  redactor  "  is  invoked  to  interpolate 
and  alter,  there  remains  a  not  inconsiderable  number  of  cases 
to  show  that  the  presence  of  the  divine  names  is  not  an 
infallible  test  Kuenen  himself  says — and  the  admission 
is  striking—"  The  history  of  critical  investigation  has  shown 
that  far  too  much  weight  has  often  been  laid  on  agreement 
in  the  use  of  the  divine  names  [it  is  the  pillar  of  the  whole 
hypothesis].  ...  It  is  well,  therefore,  to  utter  a  warning 
against  laying  an  exaggerated  stress  on  this  one 
phenomenon."  *  There  are  grounds  for  this  warning. 

(1)  There  can   be  no  doubt   whatever   that  the  name  I 
"  Elohim "   ig   sometimes  found  in  J  passages.       In   the 
narrative  of  the  temptation  in  Gen.  iil  (J),  e.g.,  the  name 

1  Cf.  Dillraann,  Genesis,  p.  21  :  "  The  redactor  R  often  writes  the  language 
of  A  [  =  P],"  eta     See  later  on  "  imitation*  "  of  D,  P,  etc. 

1  See  below,  p.  226.  *  Introd.  p.  13  ;  Oenuit,  p,  zL 

4  Hex.  p.  01. 


222       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

"  Jehovah "  is  not  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  serpent,  but, 
instead,  the  name  "Elohim":1  "Yea,  hath  Elohim  said," 
etc.  Similarly,  in  the  story  of  Hagar's  flight  (J),  the  hand- 
maid is  made  to  say :  "  Thou  Elohim  seest  me." 2  In  such 
cases  one  can  easily  see  that  a  principle  is  involved.  In 
the  story  of  the  wrestling  at  Peniel,  again,  in  Gen.  xxxii. 
(J),  we  have  "Elohim"  in  vers.  28,  29.  In  the  life  of 
Joseph,  Gen.  xxxix.  is  assigned  by  Dillmann,  Kuenen, 
Kautzsch,  and  most  to  J  (as  against  Wellhausen),  despite 
its  "linguistic  suggestions"  of  E,  and  the  occurrence  of 
"  Elohim  "  in  ver.  9 ;  and  Kuenen  writes  of  other  passages : 
"  Elohim  in  chaps,  xliii.  29,  xliv.  16,  is  no  evidence  for  E, 
since  Joseph  speaks  and  is  spoken  to  as  a  heathen  until 
chap,  xlv."  8 

(2)  Examples  of  the  converse  case  of  the  use  of  Jehovah 
by  E  are  not  so   numerous,   but  such   occasionally  occur. 
Addis,   indeed,  says    roundly:    "The    Elohist  .  .  .  always 
speaks   of  Elohim  and  never   of  Yahweh,  till   he  relates 
the  theophany  in  the    burning   bush."4     But   Dr.   Driver 
states  the  facts   more   cautiously  and  correctly.     "E,"  he 
says,  "  prefers  God  (though  not  exclusively),  and  Angel  of 
God,  where  J   prefers   Jehovah  and   Angel   of  Jehovah."6 
E.g.,  in  Gen.  xxii.  1-14  (E)  "  Angel  of  Jehovah "  occurs  in 
ver.    11,  and  "Jehovah"  twice  in  ver.   14.     Similarly,  in 
Gen.  xxviii  17-22  (E),  Jacob  says:  "Then  shall  Jehovah 
be  my  God."  6     When  the  use  of  the  divine  names  is  taken 
from  the  former  exclusive  ground,  and  reduced  to  a "  pre- 
ference," it  is  obvious  that  new  possibilities  are  opened. 
We  ask  that  it   be  noted  further  that   isolated   Elohistic 
sections  occur  after  Ex.  iiL,7  e.g.,  in  Ex.  xiii  17-19,  xviii. 
— a  singular  fact  to  be  afterwards  considered. 

(3)  We   would   call    attention,   lastly,   to   the  lengths 
which  criticism   is  prepared  to  go   in   acknowledging  the 
principle  of  discrimination  in  the  use  of  the  divine  names. 
Kuenen,  with  his  usual   candour  from   his   own   point  of 

1  Gen.  iii.  1,  3,  5.  s  Gen.  rri.  13. 

1  Hex.  pp.  145-46.  4  Hex.  L  p.  liv.     Thus  most  critics. 

8  Genesis,  p.  xiii.     Cf.  Inf.rod.  p.  13.  " 

8  Ver.  21.  A  redactor  is  here  brought  in,  as  elsewhere,  but  unwarrant- 
ably. What  caprice  should  lead  a  redactor  to  change  these  particular 
expressions,  when  so  many  others  are  left  untouched  « 

7  But  note  the  use  of  "Jehovah"  in  this  chapter  before  the  revelation 
(vers.  2,  4). 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  223 

view,  allows  to  this  principle  considerable  scope.  "  The 
original  distinction  between  Jahwe  and  Elohiin,"  he  says, 
"  very  often  accounts  for  the  use  of  one  of  these  appellations 
in  preference  to  the  other."1  (Dr.  Driver  allows  it 
"only  in  a  comparatively  small  number  of  instances.") - 
He  gives  in  illustration  the  following  cases.  "  When  the 
God  of  Israel  is  placed  over  against  the  gods  of  the  heathen, 
the  former  is  naturally  described  by  the  proper  name 
Jahwe  (Ex.  xii.  12;  xv.  11;  xviii.  11).  When  heathens 
are  introduced  as  speaking,  they  use  the  word  Elohim 
(Gen.  xli.  39).  .  .  .  So,  too,  the  Israelites,  when  speaking 
to  heathens,  often  use  Elohim,  as  Joseph  does,  for  instance, 
to  Potiphar's  wife,  Gen.  xxxix.  9 ;  to  the  butler  and  baker, 
Gen.  xL  8 ;  and  to  Pharaoh,  Gen.  xli.  16,  25,  28,  32  (but 
also  in  vers.  51,  52,  which  makes  us  suspect  that  there 
may  be  some  other  reason  for  the  preference  of  Elohim); 
so,  too,  Abraham  to  Abimelech,  Gen.  xx.  13  (where  Elohini 
even  takes  the  plural  construction).  Where  a  contrast 
between  the  divine  and  the  human  is  in  the  mind  of  the 
author,  Elohim  is  at  any  rate  the  more  suitable  word 
(e.g.,  Gen.  iv.  25;  xxxii.  28;  Ex.  viii.  15;  xxxii.  16,  etc.)."8 

2.  What  now,  we  go  on  to  inquire,  is  the  explanation  of 
these  phenomena? 

(1)  We  have  already  seen  the  difficulties  which  attend 
the  critical  solution  of  distinct  sources  in  the  case  of  docu- 
ments so  markedly  similar  and  closely  related  as  J  and  E. 
There  can  be  no  objection,  indeed,  to  the  assumption 
of  the  use  by  the  writer  of  Genesis  of  an  older  source, 
or  older  sources,  for  the  lives  of  the  patriarchs;  such, 
in  our  opinion,  must  have  been  there.  But  such  source, 
or  sources,  would,  if  used,  underlie  both,  J  and  E  sections, 
while  the  general  similarity  of  style  in  the  narratives  shows 
that,  in  any  case,  older  records  were  not  simply  copied. 
It  may  be  further  pointed  out  that  the  supposition  of  two 
or  more  documents  (JEP,  etc.),  combined  by  a  redactor, 
does  not  in  reality  relieve  the  difficulty.  We  have  still 
to  ask — On  what  principle  did  the  redactor  work  in  the 
selection  of  his  material  ?  What  moved  him,  out  of  the 
several  (parallel)  narratives  at  his  disposal,  here  to  choose 
J,  there  to  choose  E,  in  another  place  to  choose  P,  at  other 
times  to  weave  in  stray  sentences  or  clauses  from  this 

1  Hex.  p.  68.  *  JiUrod.  p.  13.  »  Ilex.  pp.  58-59. 


224       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

or  that  writing  ?  Did  he  act  from  mere  caprice  ?  If  he 
did  not,  the  difficulty  of  the  names  seems  only  shifted 
back  from  the  original  authors  to  the  compiler. 

(2)  Shall  we  then  say,  sustaining  ourselves  on  such 
admissions  as  those  of  Kuenen  above,  that  the  alternation 
of  names  in  JE  narratives  in  Genesis  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  these  names  are  always  used  discriminativcly  ?  This 
has  been  the  favourite  view  of  writers  of  a  conservative 
tendency,1  and  there  is  assuredly  a  deep  truth  underlying  it, 
though  we  do  not  think  it  can  be  carried  through  to  the  full 
extent  that  these  writers  desire.  It  is  the  case,  and  is  gener- 
ally admitted,  that  there  is  a  difference  of  meaning  in  the  two 
names  of  God, — "  Ehhim  and  Jahweh,"  as  Dr.  Driver  puts 
it,  "represent  the*clivine  nature  under  different  aspects, 
viz.,  as  the  God  of  nature  and  the  God  of  revelation  re- 
spectively,"2— and  it  will  also  be  allowed  that  to  some  extent 
this  is  the  principle  governing  their  selection  in  particular 
passages.  But  is  it  the  principle  of  distinction  throughout  ? 

In  this  connection  it  is  necessary  to  consider  the 
important  fact,  on  which  the  critics  rightly  lay  much  stress, 
that  in  the  case  of  E  the  distinction  in  the  use  of  the  divine 
names  ceases  (not  wholly,  as  we  saw,  but  generally)  with  the 
revelation  in  Ex.  iii.  What  does  this  fact  mean  ?  The 
critical  answer  is  simple :  a  new  name  of  God — the  name 
Jehovah — is  here  revealed,  and  with  the  revelation  of  the 
new  name  the  use  of  the  older  name  is  discontinued.  This 
explanation,  however,  as  a  little  reflection  shows,  is  not 
quite  so  satisfactory  as  it  seems.  For,  first,  it  is  not  a 
distinction  between  E  and  J  that  the  one  knows  of  a 
revelation  of  God  to  Moses  by  His  name  Jehovah,  and 
the  other  does  not.  Both,  as  we  find,  are  aware  of,  and 
describe  in  nearly  the  same  terms,  the  commission  to  Moses. 
In  both  Moses  was  to  tell  the  children  of  Israel  that 
"  Jehovah,  the  God  of  [their]  fathers "  had  sent  him.  Ex. 
iii  15  (E);  16  VJ);  iv.  5  (J).  And,  second,  while  it  is  E 
who  records  the  words  of  revelation  "I  AM  THAT  I  AM" 
(ver.  14),  it  is  not  E,  but  P,  who  later  has  the  declaration : 
"  I  appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob, 
as  El-Shaddai,  but  by  My  name  Jehovah  I  was  not  known 
to  them."3  There  is  thus  no  indication  that  E  regarded 

1  E.g.,  Hengstenberg,  Keil,  Green,  Rupprecht,  etc. 

1  Introd.  p.  13.  *  Ex.  vi.  3. 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  225 

the  revelation  to  Moses  in  any  other  light  than  J  did : l 
therefore,  no  apparent  reason  why  E,  any  more  than  J, 
should  draw  in  his  narrative  so  sharp  a  distinction  hetween 
the  period  before  and  that  after  the  revelation  in  Exodus. 
Nor,  in  fact,  did  he ;  for  \ve  have  seen  that  Elohistic  sections 
are  found  later  in  the  book,  and  many  able  critics  hold  the 
view  that  originally  the  E  document  had  this  name  Elohim 
till  its  close.* 

The  general  sense  of  the  revelation  to  Moses  is  evidently 
the  same  in  all  the  three  supposed  sources,  and  this  helps 
us  in  determining  the  meaning  of  the  words  above  quoted 
from  P — "  By  My  name  Jehovah  I  was  not  known  to  them." 
Do  these  words  mean,  as  most  critics  aver,  that  the  name 
Jehovah  was  up  to  that  time  absolutely  unknown  ?  Was 
ihe . revelation  merely  a  question  of  a  new  vocable?  Or,  in 
consonance  with  the  pregnant  Scriptural  use  of  the  word 
"  name," — in  harmony  also  with  the  declarations  of  J  and 
E  that  the  God  who  speaks  is  "  Jehovah,  the  God  of  your 
fathers,"8 — is  the  meaning  not,  as  many  have  contended, 
that  the  God  who  in  earlier  times  had  revealed  Himself  in 
deeds  of  power  and  mercy  as  El  Shaddai,  would  now  reveal 
Himself,  in  the  deliverance  of  Israel,  in  accordance  with 
the  grander  character  and  attributes  implied  in  His  name 
Jehovah — the  ever-abiding,  changeless,  covenant-keeping 
One  ? 4  For  ourselves  we  have  no  doubt  that,  as  this  is  tho 
deeper,  so  it  is  the  truer  view  of  the  revelation  ;  any  other 
we  have  always  felt  to  be  a  superficiulising  of  it6 

There  is,  therefore,  good  ground  for  laying  stress  on  the 
distinction  of  meaning  in  the  divine  names.  This,  probably, 

1  E,  in  point  of  fact  does,  as  we  saw,  occasionally  use  "Jehovah"  in  Genesis. 
*Cf.,  e.g.,  Dil'.mann,  Xum.-Jos.  p.  617;  Addis,  Hex.  i.   p.   liv.     See 
In-low,  p.  226. 

*  That  the  name  Jehovah  was  probably  really  older,  as  J,  certainly,  and 
probably  both  J  ami  E,  assume,  in  shown  in  Note  B  to  Chap.  V.  al  ove. 

4 The  "name"  denotes  in  p-neral  the  revelation-side  of  God's  l«ing. 
Jehovah,  as  we  understand  it,  denotes  the  God  of  the  Covenant  as  the  Out 
who  remains  eternally  one  with  Himself  in  all  that  He  is  and  does  :  the 
Srlf-Ean&nt  and  there-fore  the  Mf-ContitteiU  One.  Kautzsch  taken  the  name 
as  meaning  the  "eternal  and  constant."— Diet,  of  Bible  (Extra  Vol.).  p.  625. 

•  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  Colenao,  who  at  first  tenaciously  n-nisted 
this  view,  came  round  latterly  to  regard  it  as  admissible— even  suggrsta  it 
as  an  explanation  of  how  J  might  use  the  sacred  name  in  Genesis  without  a 
MOM  or  discrepancy  with  P.     "  Whereas,"  he  m\*,  "if  it  means  (aa  some 
explain  it)  that  it  [the  name  Jehovah]  was  not  fully  understood  or  rtoJited, 
the  contradiction  in   terms   would  disappear  altogether,"  etc. — ftnL   vi. 
pp   B82-«3. 

'5 


226       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

— so  far  we  go  with  the  critics, — is  the  real  reason  of  the 
predominating  usage  in  the  P  parts  prior  to  Ex.  vi.  The 
usage  in  this  writing  is  ruled  by  the  contrast  of  two  stages 
of  revelation,  which  the  writer  desires  to  emphasise.  Still 
we  think  that,  while  this  explanation  of  discriminative  use 
is  perhaps  not  impossible  for  JE,  and  often  has  real  place,1 
it  is  highly  improbable  that  the  same  author  should  designedly 
change  the  name  in  so  marked  a  fashion  through  whole 
chapters,  as  is  done  in  this  narrative,  without  more  obvious 
reason  than  generally  presents  itself.  Only,  as  formerly 
remarked,  the  critics  themselves  cannot  wholly  get  away 
from  this  difficulty.  If  not  the  author,  then  the  redactor 
must  have  had  some  principle  to  guide  him  in  choosing, 
now  a  Jehovistic,  now  an  Elohistic  section.  He  is  too 
skilful  a  person  to  have  worked  at  random  ;  the  distinction 
of  names  in  his  documents  must  have  been  as  obvious  to 
him  as  to  us ;  he  is  supposed  to  have  often  changed  the 
names  to  make  them  suit  his  context ;  it  is  difficult,  therefore, 
to  think  that  he  had  not  some  principle  or  theory  to  guide  him. 
3.  This  leads  to  another,  and  very  important  question — 
Is  it  so  certain  that  in  the  case  of  JE  there  has  been  no 
change  in  the  names  ?  The  question  is  not  so  uncalled  for 
as  it  may  seem.  We  do  not  need  to  fall  back  on  the  redactor 
of  the  critics  to  recognise  that  the  Pentateuch  has  a  history 
— that,  like  other  books  of  the  Bible,  it  has  undergone  a 
good  deal  of  revision,  and  that  sometimes  this  revision  has 
left  pretty  deep  traces  upon  the  text.  The  differences  in 
the  Hebrew,  Samaritan,  and  LXX  numbers  in  Gen.  v.  and 
XL  are  a  familiar  example.  But  in  the  use  of  the  divine 
names  also  suggestive  facts  present  themselves.  It  has 
been  mentioned  above  as  the  conjecture  of  certain  critics 
that  the  E  document  had  originally  "  Elohim  "  till  its  close, 
and  was  designedly  changed  to  "  Jehovah "  after  Ex.  iii. 
(but  why  then  not  wholly  ?).  A  plainer  example  is  in  Gen. 
ii.-iii.  (J),  where  the  two  names  are  conjoined  in  the  form 
"Jehovah  Elohim"  (LcwD  God).  It  is  generally  allowed 
that  this  is  not  the  original  form  of  writing,2  and  that  the 

1  As  in  Gen.  iii.  above,  p.  222.  Cf.  also  below,  pp.  234-35.  As  analogous, 
the  usage  in  the  prologue  and  close  of  the  Book  of  Job  may  be  compared 
with  that  in  the  body  of  the  book. 

a  Gunkel.  however,  following  Budde,  actually  thinks  that  we  have  here 
also  the  working  together  of  two  stories  of  Paradise — an  Elohistio  and  a 
Johoviatic. — Genesis,  p.  4. 


I.  THE  .IE  ANALYSIS  227 

names  are  intentionally  combined  to  show  the  identity  of 
the  "  Elohim  "  of  chap.  i.  (P)  with  the  "  Jehovah  "  of  the 
subsequent  narratives.  If  we  may  believe  Klostermann, 
the  ancient  Hebrews  could  never  have  used  in  speech  such 
a  combination  as  "Jehovah  Elohim,"  and  would  read 
here  simply  "  Elohim." l  The  LXX  is  specially  instructive 
on  this  point,  for  it  frequently  reads  "  God  "  simply  (chap.  ii. 
5,  7,  9,  19,  21),  where  the  Hebrew  has  the  double  name. 
So  in  chap.  iv.  1,  for  "  I  have  gotten  a  man  by  the  help  of 
Jehovah,"  the  LXX  reads  "God"  (conversely  in  ver.  25, 
for  "  God  "  in  the  Hebrew  it  reads  "  Lord  God  ") ;  and  in 
ver.  26,  for  "call  on  Jehovah,"  it  has  "Lord  God."  This 
raises  the  question,  more  easily  asked  than  answered — Did 
this  combination  of  the  names  stop  originally  with  chap.  iii.  ? 
Or  if  not,  how  far  did  it  go  ?  The  LXX  certainly  carried 
it  a  good  way  further  than  our  present  text — at  least  to  the 
end  of  the  story  of  the  flood.1 

There  is,  however,  yet  another  class  of  phenomena  bear- 
ing closely  on  our  subject — which  has,  in  fact,  furnished 
Klostermann  with  the  suggestion  of  a  possible  solution  of 
our  problem  well  deserving  of  consideration.  We  refer  to 
the  remarkable  distribution  of  the  divine  names  in  the 
Book  of  Psalms.  It  was  before  pointed  out  that  in  the  first 
three  of  the  five  Books  into  which  the  Psalter  is  divided, 
the  psalms  are  systematically  arranged  into  Jehovistic 
and  Elohistic  groups:  Book  I.  is  Jehovistic  (Davidic); 
Book  II.,  Elohistic  (sons  of  Korah,  Asaph,  David) ;  Book  III., 
Jehovistic  (sons  of  Korah,  etc.).3  Here,  then,  in  the 
Pentateuch  and  in  the  Psalter  are  two  sets  of  phenomena 
sufficiently  similar  to  suggest  the  probability  of  a  common 
cause.  What  is  the  explanation  in  the  case  of  the  psalms  ? 
Is  it,  as  Colenso  thought,  that  David  wrote  Elohistic  psalms 

1  /Vn/ofeiuA,  p.  37.  "Only  in  tho  temple,  according?  to  Jacob  (Ztit.  d. 
Mitt*.  lYiMentcha/t,  1896,  p.  158),  WMthemcred  name  JHVH  pronounced  " 
-  Kirkpatrick,  /Www,  p.  67. 

1  The  oom|>ound  expressions  "Jehovah,  Qod  of  fthem  "  (Aiiraham,  etr.), 
Oen.  ix.  26  ;  xxiv.,  etc.,  also  deserve  consideration.  IB  it,  beside*,  certain 
that  the  divine  namca  in  the  oldest  script  were  always  written  in  full,  or 
aa  words,  and  not  represented  by  a  xign  T  Dillmann,  it  may  be  observed, 
thinks  that,  conversely,  Klohini  in  E  is  frequently  changed  into  Jehovah 
(i\um.-Jot.  p.  52),  a  statement  which  proves  rather  the  uncertainty  of  his 
hypothesis  than  the  necessity  of  the  change. 

*  Of.  above,  p.  197.  For  details  see  W.  R.  Smith,  Ice.  dt.  ;  Kirkpatrick, 
Th»  Psalms,  pp.  Iv  ff.,  etc, 


228       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

at  one  period  of  his  life,  and  Jehovistic  psalms  at  another  ? 
Few  critics  at  the  present  day  would  accept  this  solution ; 
besides,  it  does  not  explain  the  phenomena  of  the  other 
groups.  The  real  key,  it  is  generally  allowed,  is  furnished 
in  the  fact  that,  in  a  few  cases,  the  same  psalms  (or  parts  of 
psalms)  appear  in  different  groups — in  one  form  Jehovistic, 
in  the  other  Elohistic.  Thus  Ps.  liii.  is  an  Elohistic  re- 
cension of  the  Jehovistic  Ps.  xiv. ;  Ps.  Ixx.  is  an  Elohistic 
recension  of  the  Jehovistic  Ps.  xl.  13-17  (in  the  remaining 
case,  Ps.  cviii  =  Ps.  Ivii  7-11,  and  Ix.  5-12,  both  versions 
are  Elohistic).  As  the  psalmist  cannot  well  be  supposed 
to  have  written  the  psalm  in  both  forms,  it  is  clear  that  in 
one  or  other  of  the  versions  the  name  has  been  designedly 
changed.  This  also  is  the  nearly  unanimous  opinion  of 
modern  scholars.1  Facts  show  that  there  was  a  time,  or 
were  times,  in  the  history  of  Israel,  when  in  certain  circles 
there  was  a  shrinking  from  the  use  of  the  sacred  name 
Jehovah,2  and  when,  in  speech,  the  name  "Elohim"  or 
"  Adonai "  s  was  substituted  for  it.  Not  only  was  the  name 
changed  in  reading,  but  versions  of  the  psalms  apparently 
were  produced  for  use  with  the  name  written  as  it  was  to  be 
read — that  is,  with  Elohim  substituted  for  Jehovah.4 
Klostermann's  suggestion,  in  brief,  is  that  precisely  the 
same  thing  happened  with  the  old  Jehovistic  history-book 
of  Israel,  which  corresponds  with  what  we  call  JE.  There 
was  an  Elohistic  version  of  this  work  in  circulation  along- 
side of  the  original  Jehovistic — a  recension  in  which  the 
divine  name  was  written  "  Elohim,"  at  least  up  to  Ex.  iii., 
and  possibly  all  through.  When  the  final  editing  of  the 
Pentateuch  took  place,  texts  of  both  recensions  were 
employed,  and  sections  taken  from  one  or  the  other  as  was 
thought  most  suitable.5  In  other  words,  for  the  J  and  E 

'Of.  W.  R.  Smith,  O.T.  in  J.  C.,  p.  119;  Driver,  Introd.  p.  372; 
Kirkpatrick,  Psalms,  as  above,  Library  of  O.T.,  p.  39;  Klosterniann, 
Pentateuch,  p.  36  ;  Kcinig,  Hauptjtrobleme,  p.  28,  etc. 

*t'f.,  e.g.,  Ecdesiastes,  and  the  preference  for  "Elohim"  in  Chronicles. 
"The  compiler  of  Chronicles,"  says  Driver,  "changes  conversely  Jehovah 
of  his  original  source  into  God,"  etc. — Introd.  p.  21  ;  cf.  p.  372. 

3  It  is  well  known  that  the  Jews  change  "  Jehovah  "  in  reading  into 
'•Adonai"  or  "Elohim,"  and  that  the  vowels  of  "Jehovah"  itself  are 
really  those  of  "  AdonaL"  The  name,  we  have  seen,  is  properly  Jahweh. 

•  Cf.  Klostermann,  as  above. 

8  Evidently  on  this  theory  the  need  remains  of  finding  a  reason  for  the 
preference  of  the  divine  names  as  much  as  ever.  This  brings  us  back,  as  at 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  229 

documents  of  the  critics,  Kloatermann  substitutes  J  and  E 
recensions  uf  unc  and  fkt  same  old  uvrk.1  To  him,  as  to  us, 
the  piecing  together  of  independent  documents  in  the 
manner  which  the  critical  theory  supposes,  appears 
incredible.  If  hypothesis  is  to  be  employed,  this  of 
Xlostermann,  in  its  general  idea,  seems  to  us  as  good  as 
any.1 

VI.  LINGUISTIC  AND  OTHER  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  FOR 
SEPARATION 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  strongest  reasons  exist, 
despite  the  distinction  in  the  divine  names,  for  believing 
that  J  and  E  never  had  currency  as  separate  documents ; 
it  is  now  to  be  asked  whether  these  reasons  are  overborne 
by  the  remaining  grounds  ordinarily  alleged  to  prove 
that  J  and  E  were  originally  independent.  The  long 
lists  of  marks  of  distinction  adduced  by  JDillnmnn  and 
other  critics8  have  at  first  sight  an  imposing  appear- 
ance. On  closer  inspection,  however,  they  reduce  them- 
selves to  much  scantier  dimensions.  They  were,  for  the 
most  part,  not  obvious  to  the  earlier  critics,  and,  as  proofs 
of  independence,  can  be  shown  to  be  largely  illusory.  Such, 
e.g.,  are  all  the  marks,  formerly  adverted  to,  supposed  to 
show  a  superior  interest  of  E  in  Ephraimitic  localities  and 
in  the  house  of  Joseph.  It  turned  out  that  J  displayed  at 
least  as  warm  an  interest  in  Northern  places,  while  E 
dwells  also  on  Beersheba,  the  one  Southern  locality  that 
comes  prominently  into  the  part  of  the  history  he  nar- 
rates. Indeed,  "the  South  country  "is  adduced  as  one  of 
his  favourite  phrases.4  The  chief  remaining  grounds  of  dis- 

least  the  main  reason,  to  the  feeling  of  a  superior  appropriateness  of  one 
name  rather  than  the  other  in  a  given  context. 

1  Cf.  Pentateuch,  pp.  10,  11,  27  ff. 

*  We  do  not  gather  that  Klostermann  supposes  his  Elohistio  recension 
to  be  necessarily  late— the  same  causes  probably  operated  at  earlier  periods 
— or  to  be  inconsistent  with  a  union  of  J  K  with  P.  His  own  theory  is  that 
Mich  *  nnion  goes  far  back  (Pent.  p.  185).  The  fault  of  KlcmtrmannV 
treatment  is  the  excessive  scope  he  allows  for  variations  of  the  text  in 
course  of  transmission.  The  well-marked  physiognomy  of  the  JE  and  I' 
text  is  an  argument  against  such  wide  change. 

'Cf.  Dillmann,  Num.-Jos.  pp.  617  if.;  more  moderately,  Driver, 
IntrocL  pp.  118-19.  Genesis,  p.  xiii. 

4  E  mentions  also  Hebron  (see  above,  p.  210),  and.  if  his  hand  is  really 
present,  as  some  suppose,  in  (u-n.  xv.  he  must  have  had  an  account  of  tho 


230       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

tinction  are  alleged  linguistic  peculiarities,  distinctive  modes 
of  representation,  duplicate  narratives,  etc.  Let  us  look  at 
these. 

1.  On  the  subject  of  liiiguistic  peculiarities,  Dr.  Driver's 
statement  was  formerly  quoted  that  "the  phraseological 
criteria  "  distinguishing  J  and  E  are  "  slight." l  They  are 
slight,  in  fact,  to  a  degree  of  tenuity  that  often  makes  the 
recital  of  them  appear  like  trifling.  In  not  a  few  cases 
words  are  fixed  on  as  characteristic  which  occur  only  once 
or  twice  in  the  whole  Pentateuch,  or  which  occur  in  both  J 
and  E,  or  in  contexts  where  the  analysis  is  doubtful,  or 
where  the  reasoning  is  of  the  circular  order  which  first 
gives  a  word  to  J  or  E,  then  assigns  a  passage  to  that 
document  because  the  word  is  present  in  it.  Here  are  a  lew 
examples : — 

E  is  credited  with  "  what  may  be  called  an  antiquarian 
interest," 2  on  the  ground,  among  other  things,  that  he  once 
uses  in  Genesis  (xxxiii.  19),  in  narrating  a  purchase,  the 
word  Kesitah  (a  piece  of  money) — found  elsewhere  in  the 
Bible  only  in  Josh.  xxiv.  32  (E  ?)  and  Job  xlii.  11. 

"  Land  of  the  South,"  above  referred  to,  occurs  only  three 
times  in  the  Pentateuch — in  Gen.  xx.  1  (E),  in  Gen.  xxiv. 
62  (which  Delitzsch  says  cannot  be  referred  to  E),  and  in 
Num.  xiii.  29  (doubtful) ;  and  once  in  Josh.  xv.  19  (J). 

The  phrase  "  after  these  things,"  said  to  be  a  mark  of  E 
(Well.),  is  found  first  in  Gen.  xv.  1  (J) — E's  presence  in  this 
context  is  contested,  and  the  analysis  is  declared  to  be  at 
best  "only  probable" — then  in  three  passages  given  to  E 
(Gen.  xxii.  1;  xl.  1 ;  xlviii.  1);  but  also  in  two  J  passages 
(Gen.  xxii.  20 ;  xxxix.  7),  and  in  Josh.  xxiv.  29  (possibly  P, 
as  giving  an  age). 

The  word  Koh,  (in  sense  of  "here")  in  Gen.  xxii.  5, 
assigned  as  a  mark  of  E,  is  found  elsewhere  once  in  Genesis 
(xxxi.  37  E),  in  Num.  xxiii.  15  (mixed),  and  besides  in 
Ex.  ii.  12,  assigned  by  Wellhausen  to  J,  and  in  Num.  xi.  31, 
given  by  Kuenen  to  J. 

When  we  turn  to  instances  which  may  be  judged  more 
important,  we  are  in  hardly  better  case.  One  observes  that 

covenant  with  Abraham  at  Harare.  If  otherwise,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how 
E  can  be  expected  to  speak  of  localities  which  belong  to  a  period  before  his 
own  narrative  be<rins. 

1  Introd.  pp.  13,  126 ;  see  above,  p.  219.  2  Addis,  Hex.  i.  p.  Iv. 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  231 

where  other  writers  indulge  in  the  customary  "always"  and 
"  invariably,"  Dr.  Driver  frequently  uses  the  safer  word 
"  prefers." 1  The  following  are  a  few  principal  examples,  and 
the  extent  of  the  "  preference"  may  be  gauged  from  them : — 

"The  Jahvist,"  we  are  told,  "calls  a  female  slave  or 
concubine  Shiphhah,  the  Elohist  invariably  Amah."*  Dr. 
Driver  says  in  the  case  of  E,  "  prefers " — and  prudently. 
Amah  is  used  by  E  some  half-dozen  times  in  Genesis  (xx.  17 ; 
xxi  10, 12, 13 ;  xxx.  3  ;  xxxi.  33),  but  Shiphhah  occurs  nearly 
as  often  in  E  or  in  inseparably  interwoven  contexts  (Gen.  xx. 
14;  xxix.  24,  29,  assigned  to  P;  xxx.  4,  7,  18).8  Whether 
Amah  is  used  by  E  or  J  in  Ex.  ii.  5,  xx.  10  (Fourth  Com.), 
xxi.  (Book  of  Covenant — repeatedly),  depends  on  the 
accuracy  of  the  analysis  which  assigns  these  parts  to  E,  and 
on  this  critics  are  quite  divided.4  Ex.  xxi.-xxiii.,  e.g.,  are 
given  by  Wellhausen,  Westphal,  etc.,  to  J. 

We  are  told  again  that  "  the  Jahvist  speaks  of  '  Sinai,' 
the  Elohist  of  'Horeb.'  E's  usage  reduces  itself  to  three 
passages  (Ex.  iil  1 ;  xvil  6 ;  xxxiii.  6) — the  last  two  deter- 
mined mainly  by  the  presence  of  the  word ;  J  employs  Sinai 
solely  in  chaps,  xix.  (cf.  ver.  1 ;  xxiv.  16,  P)  and  xxxiv.  2,  4, 
in  connection  with  the  actual  giving  of  the  law.5  The 
related  expression  "  mountain  of  God  "  seems  common  (Ex. 
iil  1,  E ;  iv.  27,  J ;  xxiv.  13  ?). 

"The  Jahvist,"  it  is  said,  "calls  the  aborigines  of 
Palestine  '  Canaanites,'  the  Elohist  '  Amorites.'"  This, 
on  examination,  breaks  down  entirely.  E  has  no  monopoly 
of  "Amorite"  (cf.  Gen.  x.  16;  xiv.  13;  xv.  21),e  and  the 

1  Genesis,  p.  xiii. 

*  Addis,  i.  p.  Ivi.     The  quotations  that  follow  are  also  from  Addis,  pp. 
Ivi,  Ivii. 

1  It  is  pure  arbitrariness  and  circular  reasoning  to  change  this  single 
word  in  chap.  xx.  14  ami  xxx.  18,  on  the  ground  that  "the  regular  word  for 
women  slaves  in  E  is  Amah,"  and  that  "J  on  the  other  hand  always 
employs  Shiphhah  "  (Oxf.  Hex.  ii.  pp.  29,  45) — the  very  point  in  dispute, 
lu  chap.  xxix.  24,  29,  the  verses  are  cut  out  and  given  to  P ;  chap.  xxx. 
4,  7  are  similarly  cut  out  and  given  to  J  (p.  45). 

4  Ex.  ii.  ft  is  confessedly  given  to  E  because  "the  linguistic  conditions 
in  vers.  1  and  6  [i.e.,  this  word]  point  to  E  rather  than  .1  "  (Oxf.  Hex.  ii. 
i>.  81).  Jiilicher,  however,  gives  the  verso  to  J.  The  assignment  of  the 
IVcalngne  and  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  are  matter*  of  much  controversy. 
Delitzsch  remarks  on  the  latter:  "Such  words  as  Amah  .  .  .  are  no 
marks  of  E  in  contradistinction  to  J  and  D."— Genesis,  i.  p.  82. 

*  Possibly  Horeb  is  a  wider  designation. 

'  Oxf.  Hex.  itself  says  :  "Otherwise  in  lists."  Cf.  Kuenen  on  Gen.  x., 
Ilex.  pp.  140,  149. 


232       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

two  instances  assigned  to  him  in  Genesis  (xv.  16;  xlviii.  22) 
are  in  passages  of  most  doubtful  analysis.1  Similarly  with 
the  few  instances  of  'Canaanite'  in  J  (Gen.  x.  18;  xii.  6; 
xiii.  7,  etc. ;  cf.  xv.  21,  "  Amorite  and  Canaanite,"  given 
to  R). 

One  other  instance  must  suffice.  "  The  Jahvist  calls 
Jacob  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life  'Israel';  the  Elohist 
retains  the  name  'Jacob.'"  Dr.  Driver  more  cautiously 
says  "prefers";  Kuenen  says  "generally."2  Here,  again, 
the  case  is  only  made  out  by  tearing  asunder  the  web  of  what 
is  evidently  a  closely-connected  narrative,  and  by  liberal 
use  of  the  redactor.  It  will  be  observed  that  it  is  only  in 
the  "  latter  part "  of  Jacob's  life  that  this  peculiarity  is  said 
to  be  found.  J  had  recorded  the  change  of  name  from 
Jacob  to  Israel  in  chap,  xxxii.  24-32,8  but  from  some 
eccentric  motive  he  is  supposed  not  to  commence  his  use  of 
"  Israel"  till  xxxv.  21.  Yet,  as  the  text  stands,  "Jacob"  is 
found  in  a  J  narrative  later  (chap,  xxxvii.  34),  and  "  Israel " 
in  a  long  series  of  E  passages  (Gen.  xxxvii.  3 ;  xlv.  27,  28 ; 
xlvi.  1,  2;  xlviii.  2,  8,  10,  11,  14,  21).  There  is  no  reason 
for  denying  these  verses  to  E  except  that  this  name  is  found 
in  them.  The  logician  could  find  no  better  example  of  the 
circulus  vitiosus  than  in  the  critical  treatment  of  Gen.  xlviii. 
It  may  be  noted  that  in  Exodus  J  has  "  the  God  of  Abraham, 
of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob"  (chap.  iii.  16),  and  E  in  both  Genesis 
and  Exodus  has  "  sons  of  Israel." 

2.  Connected  with  these  alleged  peculiarities  of  language 
are  others  which  turn  more  on  general  style,  "  tone,"  mode 
of  representation  of  God,  and  the  like.  E  has  a  more 
elevated  idea  of  God ;  J  is  more  vivid  and  anthropomorphic, 
etc.  Much  depends  here  on  subjective  impression,4  and  on 
the  view  taken  of  the  relation  sustained  by  E  to  J — whether 

1  Gen.  XT.  16  is  attributed  by  Wellhausen,  Budde,  Kuenen,  etc.,  to 
another  hand  (not  to  E). 

3  "At  present  we  can  only  say  that  in  the  E  sections  after  Gen.  xxxii. 
the  patriarch  is  generally  called  'Jacob,'  whereas  the  J  passages  generally 
speak  of  Israel,"  but  "in  our  mongrel  state  of  the  text  numerous  exceptions 
occur"  (Hex.  p.  145). 

3  If,  with  some  critics,  as  Dillmann,  we  assign  Gen.  xxxii.  24-32  to  E, 
we  have,  as  Dr.  Green  points  out,   "this  curious  circumstance,"  that  "P 
(xxxv.  10)  and  E  (xxxii.  28)  record  the  change  of  name  to  Israel,  but  never 
use  it ;  J  alone  makes  u.se  of  it,  and,  according  to  Dillmann,  he  does  not 
record  the  change  at  all." — Genesis,  p.  450. 

4  Cf.  the  illustration  jnven  on  p.  211. 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  233 

earlier  or  later.  Two  examples  may  be  selected  of  these 
alleged  differences,  and  one  or  two  illustrations  given  of  the 
analysis  of  passages  resulting  from  the  theory. 

We  take  examples  universally  accepted.  "  The  God  of 
whom  lie  [E]  writes,"  we  read,  "  appears  in  dreams,  or  acts 
through  the  ministry  of  angels." l  "  His  angel  calls  out  of 
heaven."  *  The  "  dream  "  criterion  is  one  much  insisted  on, 
and  for  various  reasons  deserves  attention.  As  the  "  dream  " 
is  a  lower  form  of  revelation,  and  is  generally  employed  in 
connection  with  secular  personages  —  Abimelech,  Laban, 
Joseph  (dreams  of  secular  pre-eminence),  the  butler  and 
baker,  Pharaoh,  etc. — it  is  not  wonderful  that  it  should 
commonly  appear  in  passages  of  a  prevailingly  Elohistic 
cast.  But  the  attempt  to  make  out  this  to  be  a  peculiar 
criterion  of  E  proves,  on  inspection,  to  be  an  exaggeration. 
The  passages  adduced  in  its  support,  indeed,  frequently 
prove  the  contrary.  Thus,  Gen.  xv.  1,  given  by  Driver,  is 
on  the  face  of  it  Jehovistic.'  Gen.  xx.  3,  and  most  of  the 
other  instances  (Abimelech,  Laban,  Pharaoh),  fall  under  the 
above  rule  of  fitness,  and  in  some  of  the  cases  are  assigned 
to  E  simply  because  a  "  dream "  is  recorded.  Gen.  xxviii. 
10-22 — Jacob's  vision  at  Bethel  (cf.  chap,  xlvi  2) — is  divided 
between  E  and  J  (arbitrarily,  as  shown  below),  but  the  dream 
is  implied  in  both.  In  E,  Jacob  sleeps  and  dreams  (ver.  12) ; 
in  J,  he  awakes  (ver.  16).  In  J  also  God  reveals  Himself  to 
Isaac  in  a  night  vision  (chap.  xxvi.  24 :  cf.  E  passage  above, 
xlvi.  2).  Further,  it  is  not  the  case  that  in  E  God  reveals 
Himself  only  in  dreams  or  by  angels,  as  on  the  theory  He  ought 
to  do.  God  speaks  directly  with  Abraham  in  chaps,  xxi.  12 
(contrast  with  case  of  Abimelech),  xxii.  1 ;  and  with  Jacob  in 
chap.  xxxv.  1.  He  "  appears  "  to  Jacob  at  Bethel  in  E,  chap. 
xxxv.  7,  just  as  He  does  in  P  (ver.  9).  Finally,  Wellhausen 
himself  concludes  from  chap,  x  xxvii.  19, 20  that  the  "  Jahvist" 
also  must  have  related  Joseph's  dreams;4  and  Professor 
Bennett, who  adduces  this  very  criiorion  of  E,6  follows  suit  and 

1  Addis,  i.  p.  IT  ;  cf.  Driver,  Genesit,  pp.  xx,  xxi  ;  Me  Fad  yen,  Men.  of 
Hut.  ;  "  In  the  Kloliist  He  usually  appears  in  a  dream  "  (p.  19). 

*  Driver,  ibid.  p.  xxi ;  cf.  A-ldis,  i.  p.  36  ;  McFadyen,  p.  19,  etc. 

*  There  is  certainly  no  agreement  that  chap.  xv.  1  is  E's.     This  refutes 
also  the  exclusive  right  of  E  to  a  "coming  "  of  God  in  a  dream  (Driver) — 
twice  elsewhere  in  Genesis.     Why,  it  may  be  asked,  if  the  dream  is  so 
peculiar  a  mark  of  E,  ut  it  not  carried  into  the  other  l«ook»  ? 

4  Comp.  d.  Hex.  p.  64.  •  Genesis,  p.  31. 


234      DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

says :  "  Perhaps  J  had  also  an  account  of  Pharaoh's  dream." l 
So  falls  this  hypothesis  of  "  dreams  " — itself  a  dream. 

The  argument  based  on  the  calling  of  the  Angel  of  God 
"out  of  heaven"  is  not  more  successful.  The  expression 
occurs  once  in  an  E  passage,  in  Gen.  XXL  17,  then  twice  in 
chap.  xxii.  (11, 15),  but  in  both  the  latter  cases  in  a  Jehovistic 
form,  "  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  called  out  of  heaven."  Even 
if  the  redactor  be  called  in  to  change  the  word  to  "  Elohim  " 
in  ver.  11,  because  of  the  E  context,  this  is  inadmissible  in 
the  second  case,  where  the  context  is  Jehovistic.  There  is, 
in  truth,  no  warrant  for  changing  it  in  either  case.  Yet  on 
this  infinitesimally  slender  basis  an  argument  for  the  dis- 
tinction of  E  is  reared. 

This  leads  us  to  say  that  no  stronger  proof  for  the 
inadmissibility  of  the  partition  hypothesis  in  the  case  of  J 
and  E  could  be  desired  than  the  two  passages  just  referred 
to — Gen.  xxii.  1-19. (the  sacrifice  of  Isaac),  and  Gen.  xxviii. 
10-22  (Jacob  at  Bethel).  We  would  almost  be  willing  to 
stake  the  case  for  the  unity  of  the  alleged  documents 
on  these  narratives  alone.  Each,  on  its  face,  is  a  single 
story,  which  needs  both  the  parts  ascribed  to  E  and  those 
ascribed  to  J  to  constitute  it  in  its  completeness,  and  for 
the  dividing  of  which  nothing  of  importance  but  the 
variation  in  the  divine  names  can  be  pleaded.  The  E  and 
J  portions,  on  the  other  hand,  are  unintelligible,  if  taken 
by  themselves.  Even  on  the  basis  of  the  divine  names,  the 
analysis  presents  great  difficulties,  and  critics  are  far  from 
agreed  in  their  ideas  of  it.  Thus,  in  Dr.  Driver's  scheme, 
Gen.  xxii.  1-14  is  given  to  E,  though  "  Jehovah  "  occurs  in 
ver.  11  and  twice  in  ver.  14;  in  Gen.  xxviiL  21,  "Jehovah" 
occurs  in  the  E  part,  and  has  to  be  forcibly  excised.  The 
unity  of  the  story  in  both  cases  is  destroyed  by  the  partition. 
In  Gen.  xxii.  vers.  1-14  are  given,  as  said,  to  E,  vers.  15-18 
to  J  (others  give  vers.  14-18  to  a  Jehovistic  "  redactor "), 
ver.  19,  again,  is  given  to  E.  But  each  of  these  parts  is 
evidently  complementary  to  the  others.2  If  we  break  off 

1  Genesis,  p.  29. 

2  Hupfeld,  to  whom  is  due  the  2nd  Eioliist,  Las  a  remarkable  admission 
of  this.     "  I  cannot  conceal  the  fact,"  he  says,  "  that  the  entire  narrative 
seems  to  me  to  bear  the  stamp  of  the  Jehovist ;  and  certainly  one  would 
never  think  of  the  Elohist,  hut  for  the  name  Elohim,  which  here  (as  in  part 
of  the  history  of  Joseph)  is  not  .sup]K>rted  by  the  internal  phenomena,  and 
em  ban  asses  criticism  '   (Quellcn,  p.  178).     Knobel  also  says  :  "Apart  from 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  235 

with  E  at  vers.  13  or  14  (still  more,  with  the  older  critics,  at 
ver.  10),  the  sequel  of  the  story  is  clearly  lacking.  It  is  the 
suiue  with  Gen.  xxviii.  10-22.  E  begins  with  vers.  10-12; 
vers.  13-16  are  given  to  J;  vers.  17,  18  again  fall  to  E; 
ver.  19  is  credited  to  J  ;  and  vers.  20-22  are  once  more  E's.1 
Is  such  a  patchwork  credible,  especially  when  "  redactors  " 
are  needed  to  help  out  the  complicated  process  ?  *  It  is  clear 
that  both  documents  must  have  had  the  story,  yet  neither, 
it  appears,  is  able  to  tell  it  completely.  Jacob,  as  already 
pointed  out,  falls  asleep  in  the  one  document,  and  awakes  in 
the  other.  Even  as  respects  the  names,  it  is  difficult  not  to 
see  an  appropriateness  in  their  distribution,  whether  that  is 
supposed  due  to  an  original  writer,  or  to  a  later  editor 
combining  Elohistic  and  Jebovistic  recensions.  In  both 
narratives  the  story  begins  on  a  lower  level  and  mounts  to 
a  higher  —  the  "crisis"  in  each  case  being  marked  by  the 
change  of  name.  Hengstenberg,8  but  also  Knobel,  Delitzsch, 
and  others,4  have  pointed  this  out  in  the  case  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Isaac.  "Elohim"  tempts  Abraham,  and  the  name 
continues  to  be  used  till  the  trial  of  faith  is  complete  ;  it 
then  changes  —  ascends  —  to  "Jehovah"  with  the  new 
revelation  that  arrests  the  sacrifice,  and  confirms  the 
covenant  promise.  So  in  Gen.  xxviii.  10  ff.,  Jacob,  leaving 
his  father's  house,  is  practically  in  a  state  of  spiritual 
outlawry.  As  befits  this  lower  level,  he  receives  his  revela- 
tion in  a  dream  ("  angels  of  Elohim  ascending,"  etc.)  ;  but 
"Jehovah"  appears  to  him  above  the  mystic  ladder,  and 
renews  the  covenant  It  was  a  revelation  of  grace,  wholly 
undeserved  and  unexpected,  designed  to  set  Jacob  on  his 

Elohim  nothing  in  this  narrative  reminds  us  of  the  Elohist  ;  on  the  contrary, 
everything  ppeaks  for  the  Jehovist  "  (quoted  by  Green,  Qcnrsia,  p.  483). 

1  There  are  variations  among  the  critics  here  as  elsewhere,  several,  e.g., 
give  ver.  10  to  J. 

1  Orelli  says  :  "Gen.  xxviii.  is  probably  Yahwintic,  at  least  the  splitting 
ihest  de 


cp  of  the  narrative  is  in  the  highest  degree  arbitrary."  —  O.T. 
p.  105. 

9  Gen.  of  Pent.  i.  p.  848. 

4  Knobel,  who  gives  the  whole  narrative  to  J,  says  :  "  We  have  to 
that  the  Jehovist  here  uses  Klohim  BO  long  as  there  is  reference  to  a  human 
sacrifice,  and  only  introduces  Jehovah  (ver.  11)  after  Mtting  aside  snob  a 
sacrifice,  which  wan  foreign  to  the  religion  of  Jehovah  "  (as  above).  The 
change  to  the  divine  name,  Hay*  Delit/Mch,  "  is  in  its  present  .stale  significant, 
the  God  who  commands  Abraham  to  sacrifice  Isaac  is  called  '  (Ha)-  Klohim,  ' 
and  the  divine  apjiearance  that  forbids  the  sacrifice,  '  the  Angel  of 
Jehovah.'"—  Genesis,  ii.  pp.  80-91. 


236       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

feet  again,  and  make  a  new  man  of  him.  Only  the  higher 
name  was  suited  to  such  a  theophany. 

3.  One  of  the  strongest  of  the  evidences — because  not 
depending  on  single  words — relied  on  to  prove  the  distinc- 
tion of  J  and  E,  and  the  validity  of  the  documentary 
hypothesis  generally,  is  the  occurrence  of  "duplicate" 
narratives  of  the  same  event  ("doublets"),  and  to  this 
subject  we  may  now  finally  refer.  Duplicates,  or  what  are 
held  to  be  such,  are  pointed  out  in  the  case  of  JE  and  P,  as 
in  the  two  narratives  of  creation,  Gen.  L— ii.  3  (P),  ii.  3  ff. 
(J),  and  the  twice  naming  of  Bethel,  Gen.  xxviii.  19  (J), 
xxxv.  15  (P),  cf.  ver.  7  (E) ;  but  also  between  J  and  E,  as  in 
the  twice  naming  of  Beersheba,  Gen.  xxi.  31  (E),  xxvi.  33 
(J),  the  two  flights  of  Hagar,  Gen.  xvi.  4-14  (J),  xxi.  9-21 
(E),  and  specially  in  the  stories  of  the  denials  of  their  wives 
by  Abraham  and  Isaac,  Gen.  xii.  10-20  (J),  xx.  (E),  xxvi. 
6-11  (J).1  Similar  duplications  are  thought  to  be  found 
in  the  Mosaic  history.  The  presence  of  such  differing 
and  so-called  contradictory  accounts  is  held  to  prove 
distinct  sources. 

On  these  alleged  "duplicate"  narratives  the  following 
remarks  may  first  be  made  generally : — 

(1)  Narratives  of   the  same  event  may  be  different  in 
point  of  view  and   detail,   without   being   necessarily,  as 
is  constantly  assumed — "contradictory"   or   "discordant" 
(creation,  flood,  etc.2). 

(2)  Similar  acts  may  be,  and  frequently  are,  repeated 
under  new  circumstances.     E.g.,  in  the  cases  of  Bethel  and 
Beersheba  above,  the  second  narrative  expressly  refers  back 
to  the  first  (Gen.  xxxv.  9,  cf.  on  E  below;  xxvi  15,  18). 
This  close  interrelation  of  the  different  parts  of  the  narrative 
( JEP)  is  one.  of  the  most  striking  facts  about  it. 

(3)  It  weakens  the  argument  that "  duplications  "  do  not 
always  occur  in  different  documents — as  on  the  theory  they 
ought  to  do — but  in  no  inconsiderable  number  of  cases  fall 
within   the  limits   of   the  same  document.     Thus  E  has  a 
second  visit  to  Bethel  as  well  as  P  (Gen.  xxxv.  6,  7);  J 
has  two  denials   of  wives  —  see  below ;  alleged  duplicate 
accounts  of  the  Korahite  rebellion  are  found  in  Num.  xvi. 

1  See  a  list  of  duplicates  in  Kuenen,  Hex.  pp.  88  ff.     De  Wette  laid  great 
stress  on  this  argument  in  his  Introduction. 
a  See  below,  pp.  346  ff. 


I.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  237 

3-10  (P),1  etc.  Criticism  is  driven  here  to  further  dis- 
integrations. 

(4)  This  suggests,  lastly,  that,  even  were  the  similarity 
of  incidents  as  clear  as  is  alleged,  it  would  not  necessarily 
prove  different  authorship.  The  same  author  might  find 
varying  narrations  in  the  traditions  or  sources  from  which 
he  drew,  and  might  himself  reproduce  them  in  his  history. 
Suppose,  to  take  a  favourite  instance,  that  the  narrator 
of  the  life  of  Joseph  found  the  merchants  to  whom  Joseph 
was  sold  described  in  one  of  his  sources  as  Ishmaelites  and 
in  another  as  Midianites,  is  it  not  as  likely  that  he  would 
himself  introduce  both  names  (Gen.  xxxvii.  27,  28,  36 ; 
xxxix.  1),  as  that  a  later  "  redactor  "  should  weave  together 
the  varying  histories  of  J  and  E  ?  *  Even  this  hypothesis  is 
not  necessary,  for  we  have  independent  evidence  that 
"  Ishmaelites  '  was  used  as  a  wide  term  to  include 
"Midianites"  (Judg.  viii.  24).  In  Hagar's  flights  (in 
second  case  an  expulsion), — one  before  the  birth  of  Ishmael, 
the  other  when  he  was  grown  up  to  be  a  lad, — it  seems 
plain  that  tradition  had  preserved  the  memory  of  two 
incidents,  connected  with  different  times  and  occasions,  and 
each  natural  in  its  own  place.8 

Without  delaying  on  other  instances,  we  may  take,  as 
a  test-case,  the  most  striking  of  all  these  "  doublets  " — the 
denial  of  their  wives  by  Abraham  and  Isaac — and  subject 
that,  in  closing,  to  a  brief  analysis.  The  results  will  be 

1  Cf.,  e.g.,  MeFadyen's  Jftst.  of  Hist.  p.  7,  where  thia  cue  is  founded  on. 
See  below,  pp.  858-59. 

•The  critics  evolve  from  the  narrative  two  discrepant  histories  of 
JOMph,  according  to  which,  in  the  one  case  (E),  Joseph  is,  unknown  to  the 
brothers,  taken  out  of  the  pit  by  passing  JJidianites,  and  sold  to  Potiphar, 
captain  of  the  guard,  in  Kgypt ;  in  the  other  (J)  he  is  sold  by  the  brother* 
(no  pit)  to  a  conn-any  of  IthmaeliUt,  who  sell  him  in  turn  to  an  unnamed 
Egyptian  (no  Potiphar).  The  "  they "  in  ver.  28  is  referred  to  the 
Midianites,  In  chap,  xxxiz.  1,  indeed,  Potiphar  is  expressly  said  to  have 
bought  him  from  the  Ishmaelites,  but  this  is  excised  as  an  interpolation. 
The  whole  thing  seems  to  us  au  exercise  of  misplaced  ingenuity,  refuted  !•>• 
the  narrative,  which  hangs  together  as  it  is,  but  not  on  this  theory. 

'  A  difficulty  is  create!  about  the  aye  of  Ishmael  in  the  second  story. 
The  critics  adopt  the  reading  of  the  LXX  for  chap.  xxi.  14,  "  put  the  child  on 
her  shoulder,"  and  find  a  discrepancy  with  the  representation  of  him  as  a  lad 
of  some  fourteen  years  of  age  (cf.  Addis,  Hex.  i.  p.  34).  But  the  story  itself 
describes  him  as  a  "lad"  (vers.  12,  17,  18,  19,  20),  and  the  "  mocking"  of 
Isaac  (ver.  9)  implies  some  age.  Colenso,  for  once,  is  not  stumbled  by  the 
"carrying,"  and  cites  a  curious  Zulu  parallel  (quoted  in  Quarry,  Gcnttit, 
p.  456).  The  LXX  reading  has  no  claim  to  supersede  the  Hebrew  (ct 
Delitzsch,  inloc.}.  See  further  below,  p.  352. 


238       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

instructive,  as  throwing  light  on  critical  methods,  and  as 
showing  how  far  from  simple  this  matter  of  "  duplicates " 
really  is. 

(1)  We  have  first,  then,  to  observe  that  what  we  have 
here  to  deal  with  is  not  two,  but  three  incidents  (not  dupli- 
cates,   but    triplicates) — one   denial    in    Egypt    (Gen.    xii. 
Abraham),  and   two  in   Gerar  (chap.   xx.   Abraham,  xxvi. 
Isaac).     Of  these  narratives,  two  are  classed  as  Jehovistic 
(Gen.  xii  xxvi.),  and  one  is  classed  as  Elohistic  (chap.  xx.). 
In  strictness,  therefore,  on  the  duplication  theory,  we  seem 
bound  to  assume  for  them,  not  two,  but  three  authors ;  and 
this,  accordingly,  is   what   is   now  commonly  done.     It   is 
allowed  that  "  the  narrative  in  chap.  xii.  shows  the  general 
style  and  language  of  J," l  but  "  it  can  hardly  be  supposed 
that  the  story  of  Abram  passing  off  Sarai  as  his  sister  at 
Pharaoh's  court,  and  that  of   Isaac  dealing  similarly  with 
Ilebekah  at  Gerar,  belonged  originally  to  the  same  series  of 
traditions."  z    The  former  story,  therefore,  must  be  given  to 
some  later   representative  of  the  J  "school."3    We  have 
here  the  critical  process  of  disintegration  in  a  nutshell 

(2)  We   have  next   to   look  at   the   phenomena  of  the 
divine  names.     In   Gen.  xiL   10-20,  Dr.  Driver,  in  words 
formerly  quoted,  tells  us  that  "  the  term  Jehovah  is  uniformly 
employed."4     In  point   of   fact,  it  is  employed  only  once 
(ver.  17),  and,  strikingly  enough,  it  is  employed  once  also  in 
the  Elohistic  narrative  (chap.  xx.  18)  in  a  similar  connection. 
In  the  third  narrative  (Gen.  xxvi  6-11),  the  divine  name 
does  not  occur  at  all,  though  the  context  is  Jehovistic  (vers. 
2,  12).    So  uncertain,  indeed,  are  the  criteria,  that,  according 
to  Dillmann,5  Wellhausen  actually  at  first  gave  Gen.  xii. 
10-20  to  E  (same   as  in  chap.  xx.).     Now,  he  gives   the 
section,  as  above  hinted,  to  a  later  writer  on  the  ground, 
for  one  thing,  that  Lot  is  not  mentioned  as  accompanying 
Abraham   to   Egypt  (Lot's  presence,  however,  is   plainly 
assumed,  cf.  chap,  xiii  1).     As  respects  the  third  narrative 
(Gen.  xxvi),  so  far  from  there  being  disharmony,  the  opening 
verse  of  the  chapter  contains  an  express  reference  to  the 
going  down  of   Abraham    to  Egypt   in  the   first  narrative 
(Gen.  xii.  10) ;  but  the  whole  text  of  this  passage  (vers.  1-5) 

1  Carpenter,  Hex.  ii.  p.  19,  *  Ibid.  i.  p.  108. 

*  See  Wellhausen,  below.  4  Genesis,  p.  *L 

*  Genes  it,  L  p.  17. 


J.  THE  JE  ANALYSIS  239 

is  made  a  patchwork  of  by  the  critics.1  Finally,  in  chap. 
xx.  it  remains  to  be  explained  how  a  Jehovist  verse  comes 
to  stray  into  the  story  of  E  at  ver.  18.  It  is  easy  to  say 
"  redactor  " ;  but  one  desires  to  know  what  moved  a  redactor 
to  interpolate  into  his  E  context  the  mention  of  a  fact  for 
which  he  had  no  authority,  and  to  employ  in  doing  so  a 
divine  name  out  of  keeping  with  his  context. 

(3)  The  facts  as  they  stand  may  be  summed  up  thus. 
All  three  scenes  are  laid  in  heathen  courts.  In  the  first 
and  third  stories,  the  divine  name  is  not  used  in  the  body  of 
the  narrative  (in  the  third  is  not  used  at  all) ;  in  the  first 
and  second,  the  name  "Jehovah"  is  used  towar.  s  the  close 
(chaps,  xii.  17 ;  xx.  18)  in  connection  with  the  divine  action 
in  inflicting  penalty.  As  two  of  the  narratives  are  allowed 
by  the  more  moderate  critics  (e.g.,  Dillniann,  Driver)  to  be 
by  the  same  writer  (J),  there  is  no  need,  on  the  mere 
ground  of  duplication,  to  assume  a  different  writer  for 
the  third  story.  All  three  stories  may  well  have  belonged 
to  the  original  tradition.  Nor  do  the  conditions  require  us 
to  treat  the  stories  as  simply  varying  traditions  of  the  same 
incident  There  are  resemblances,  but  there  are  also  great 
differences.  From  both  chaps,  xii.  and  xx.  it  appears  that 
it  was  part  of  Abraham's  settled  policy,  when  travelling 
in  strange  parts,  to  pass  off  Sarah,  still  childless,  as  his 
sister  (chap.  xii.  13;  xx.  13:  on  the  half-truth  by  which 
this  was  justified,  cf.  chap.  xx.  12).*  This  of  itself  implies 
that  the  thing  was  done  more  than  once  (cf.  "  at  every 
place,"  etc.) ;  if,  indeed,  chap.  xx.  13  is  not  a  direct  glancing 
back  to  the  former  narrative.  What  Abraham  was  known 
to  have  done,  Isaac,  in  similar  peril,  may  well  have  been 
tempted  to  do  likewise.  In  the  story  about  Isaac  there  is, 
in  fact,  as  above  noticed,  a  direct  reference  to  his  father's 
first  visit  to  Egypt  (chap,  xxvl  I).8 

>  Cf.  Oxf.  Hex.  in  he.  •  S«e  aboye,  p.  109. 

1  It  would  obviously  be  easy,  on  similar  line*  t«  the  above,  to  make  out  a 
aeries  of  "demonstrable"  duplicate*  in,  say,  Hriti-h  history,  as  in  Spaniah 
wan,  Chines*  wan,  Afghan  wars,  mad  Mullahs,  etc.  :  so  in  history 
generally. 


APPENDIX   TO   CHAPTER  VII 

THE  HISTORICITY  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA 

THE  historical  character  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  is  assailed, 
partly  on  the  ground  of  discrepancies  in  the  narrative,  as 
in  the  chapters  on  the  crossing  of  Jordan  (chaps,  iii.,  iv.), 
where  two  accounts  apparently  blend ;  but  chiefly  because 
of  an  alleged  difference  in  the  mode  of  representation  of 
the  conquest.  On  the  so-called  discrepancies  we  have  no 
need  to  deny  the  use  of  separate  sources,1  if  these  are  not 
held  to  be  contradictory.  In  the  above  instance,  Kohler 
remarks  that  the  notices  of  the  two  monuments  (of  twelve 
stones,  one  in  Jordan,  the  other  at  Gilgal),  while  belonging 
to  distinct  sources,  do  not  exclude  each  other,  and  are  both 
to  be  held  fast : 2  so  in  other  narratives. 

As  regards  the  conquest,  it  is  urged  that,  according 
to  one  representation,  that  derived  from  the  Deuteronomic 
redactor  and  the  still  later  P,  the  conquest  under  Joshua 
was  rapid,  continuous,  and  complete ;  while  older  notices 
in  separate  passages,3  and  in  Judg.  i.,  show  that  it  was 
in  reality  only  achieved  gradually,  by  the  efforts  of  the 
several  tribes,  and  never  completely.  There  is,  however, 
if  the  book  be  taken  as  a  whole,  and  allowance  be  made 
for  the  generalising  tendency  peculiar  to  all  summaries,  no 
necessary  contradiction  in  the  different  representations  of 
the  -conquest,4  while  the  circumstantiality,  local  knowledge, 
and  evidently  full  recollection  of  the  narratives,  give  con- 
fidence in  the  truth  of  their  statements.  On  the  one  hand, 
the  uniform  assumption  in  all  the  JE  history,  from  the 

1  Probably  not,  however,  the  J  and  E  of  the  previous  books.     See  above, 
p.  214. 

8  See  his  Bib.  Geschichtc,  i.  pp.  473-74. 

3  E.g.,  chaps,  xiii.  13  ;  xv.  13-19,  63 ;  xvi.  10  ;  xvii.  12  ff.  ;  xviii.  2  ff. 

4  Cf.  Kbnig's  criticism  of  Budde  in  his  article  on  Judges  in  Diet,   of 
Bible,  ii.  pp.  818-19. 

Ml 


HISTORICITY  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA     241 

original  promise  to  Abraham  of  the  possession  of  the  land 
to  the  actual  conquest,  in  the  Deuteronomic  discourses,  and 
generally  in  the  tradition  of  the  people,  is,  that  the  tribes 
under  Joshua  did  take  effective  possession  of  the  land ;  and 
this  is  borne  out  by  the  fact  that  in  Judges  it  is  not  the 
Canaanites  chiefly  by  whom  they  are  molested  (an  exception 
is  the  temporary  oppression  by  Jabin1),  but  surrounding 
and  more  distant  peoples  (e.g.  Chushan-rishathaim,  king 
of  Mesopotamia,2  Moab,8  Ammon,4  Midianites,5  Philistines6). 
With  this  agrees  the  picture  given  of  the  conquest,  begin- 
ning with  the  taking  of  Jericho  and  Ai,  advancing  to  the 
defeat  of  the  confederacy  of  the  kings  at  Bethhoron,  and 
destruction  of  their  cities,7  then  to  the  defeat  of  the  greater 
confederacy  in  the  North  under  Jabin,  and  conquests  there,8 
afterwards,  in  more  general  terms,  to  further  campaigns 
in  the  middle,  South,  and  North  of  Palestine,  till  the  whole 
land  has  been  overrun.9  The  course  of  conquest  is  what 
might  have  been  expected  from  the  terror  described  by 
Rahab  (JE  ?),10  and  accords  with  the  retrospect  of  Joshua 
in  his  last  address  (E  ?).n  On  it  the  division  of  the  land, 
described  with  so  much  topographical  minuteness,  naturally 
follows.12 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Book  of  Joshua  itself  gives  many 
indications  that,  notwithstanding  these  extensive,  and,  as 
respects  the  main  object,  decisive  conquests,  there  still 
remained  much  land  to  be  possessed,  which  the  tribes 
could  only  conquer  gradually.13  Much  detail  work  had 
to  be  done  in  the  several  territories;  and  there  is  no 
difficulty  in  the  supposition  that,  after  the  first  sweeping 
wave  of  conquest,  the  Canaanites  rallied,  and  regained 
possession  of  many  places,  e.g.,  Hebron,  from  which  they 
had  been  temporarily  expelled.  An  instance  of  this  we 
have  in  Jerusalem,  which  had  been  taken  by  the  Israelites, 

1  Judg.  IT.  *  Judg.  iii.  8  ff. 

»  Judg.  iii.  12  ff.  4  Judg.  x.  7  ff. 

*  Jndg.  vi.  1  ff.  •  Judg.  xiiL  1  ff. 
7  Josh.  x.  •  Josh.  xi.  1-14. 

•  Josh.  xi.  15  ff.,  xiL  10  Josh.  ii.  9  ;  cf.  ver.  24. 
11  Josh.  xxiv.  11,  18. 

11  Chaps,  xii.  ff.  On  the  historicity  of  this,  see  below,  pp.  879-80,  and  cf. 
Konig  on  Judges  in  Diet,  of  Bible,  ii.  p.  820.  It  is  noted  below  (p.  242)  that 
a  division  of  the  land  is  implied  iu  Judg.  i.,  as  Budde  himself  admits  (cf. 
Konig,  loc.  cit.). 

u  Josh.  xiii.  1,2;  seo  passages  cited  on  p.  240. 
16 


242  APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  VII 

and  burnt  with  fire,  and  the  population  destroyed,1  but 
which  the  Jebusites  regained,  and  held  till  the  time  of 
David.2  These  facts  do  not  really  contradict  the  other 
narrative:8  indeed,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  a  Deuteronomic 
redactor  could  have  incorporated  them  unchanged  in  his 
narrative,  if  he  believed  they  contradicted  it.  The  language 
in  Joshua  about  the  conquest  is  not  more  sweeping  than 
that  in  the  Tel  el-Amarna  tablets  about  the  Khabiri.  In 
the  letters  of  Abdi-Khiba,  king  of  Jerusalem,  e.g.,  to 
Amenophis  iv.  of  Egypt,  we  have  such  expressions  as  the 
following:  "The  cities  of  my  lord,  the  king,  belonging  to 
Elimelech,  have  fallen  away,  and  the  whole  territory  of  the 
king  will  be  lost.  .  .  .  The  king  has  no  longer  any 
territory.  ...  If  no  troops  come,  the  territory  of  my  lord, 
the  king,  is  lost."  "  Bring  plainly  before  my  lord,  the 
king,  these  words:  'The  whole  territory  of  my  lord,  the 
king,  is  going  to  ruin.' "  "  The  Khabiri  are  occupying  the 
king's  cities.  There  remains  not  one  prince  to  my  lord,  the 
king:  every  one  is  ruined."  "The  territory  of  the  king 
has  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  Khabiri."  4 

There  is  no  feature  in  the  conquest  better  attested  than 
that  Joshua  was  the  leader  of  the  tribes  in  this  work,  and 
that  they  advanced  and  acted  under  his  single  leadership 
till  the  first  stages  of  the  conquest  were  completed.  This 
was  not  a  thing  done  at  once,  but  probably  occupied  several 
years.  Kittel,  who  defends  in  the  main  the  truth  of  the 
historical  recollections  in  the  narrative,  and  emphasises  this 
point  about  Joshua,5  thinks  that  a  partition  of  the  land 
(which  he  finds  implied  in  Judg.  i.,  etc.6)  must  have  taken 
place  before  the  conquest  began,  and  supposes  that,  after 
the  general  crossing  of  Jordan  under  Joshua,  and  capture  of 

1  Judg.  i.  8  ;  cf.  Josh.  x. 

1  2  Sam.  v.  6-8. 

8  Kbnig  says :  "  It  is  a  groundless  assertion  that  the  record  of  Judg.  i. 
1  excludes '  the  narrative  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  "  (p.  820). 

4  See  Bennett's  Book  of  Joshua  ("Polychrome  Bible"),  p.  55.  The 
Khabiri  are  supposed  by  some  to  have  been  the  Hebrews.  See  further 
below,  Chap.  XI.  p.  421. 

8  Hist,  of  Hebs.  i.  p.  274.  He  points  out  that  the  view  of  Meyer,  Stade, 
etc.,  that  J  did  not  know  Joshua,  is  impugned  by  Kuenen,  Dillmann,  and 
Budde. 

6  The  summary  in  Judg.  i.,  he  says,  begins  with  the  question,  "Who 
shall  begin  the  fight  ? "  and  the  territory  of  each  tribe  is  called  its  "  lot" — 
"two  facts  which  clearly  enough  presuppose  a  previous  common  agreement,' 
etc.— Ibid.  p.  275. 


HISTORICITY  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA     243 

Jericho,  Judah  and  Simeon  separated  from  the  main  body  to 
act  for  themselves  in  the  south.  Joshua  was  thereafter  leader 
of  the  Joseph  tribes  alone.1  The  view  seems  artificial,  and 
no  improvement  on  that  in  the  book.  The  course  of  events 
is,  we  may  believe,  correctly  represented  in  Josh.  xxiv. 

lffist.  o/Hebt.  pp.  272-77. 


CHAPTER   VIII 

difficulties  ano  perplexities  of  tbe  Critical 
tbesis :  ftbe  Question  ot  IDeuteronomg 


"The  Book  of  Deuteronomy  in  and  for  itself  teaches  nothing  new.  .  .-  . 
How  could  Josiah  have  been  so  terrified  because  the  prescriptions  of  tins 
book  had  not  been  observed  by  the  fathers,  and  the  people  had  thereby 
incurred  the  wrath  of  Jahweh,  if  he  had  not  been  aware  that  these 
commands  were  known  to  them  ? " — GRAF. 

"  I  am  still  certain  that  the  finding  of  the  book  of  the  law  in  the 
eighteenth  year  of  Josiah  is  neither  meant,  nor  is,  to  be  understood  of  the 
first  appearance  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  originating  about  that  time." 
— DELITZSCH. 

"Our  review  of  sources  has  convinced  us  that  it  [Deuteronomy]  draws 
from  old  Mosaic  tradition,  which  in  fact  in  many  places  goes  back 
demonstrably  into  the  Mosaic  time,  and  par  excellence  to  the  person  of  the 
lawgiver.  It  goes  so  far  as  to  incorporate  such  ordinances  as  no  longer 
suited  the  writer's  own  time,  but  only  suited  the  time  of  the  conquest  and 
settlement  in  Canaan." — OETTLI. 

"  Leaving  out  of  account  isolated  passages,  especially  the  close,  Deutero- 
nomy is  a  whole  proceeding  from  one  and  the  same  hand." — RIEHM. 


146 


CHAPTER  VIII 

DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES  OF  THE  CRITICAL 
HYPOTHESIS:  THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY 

THE  questions  we  have  been  engaged  in  discussing  with 
relation  to  J  and  E,  while  interesting  as  an  object-lesson  in 
criticism,  and,  in  their  bearing  on  dates,  important,  are 
secondary  in  comparison  with  those  which  yet  await  in- 
vestigation— the  age  and  origin  of  Deuteronomy  and  of  the 
so-called  Priestly  Code.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the 
Graf-Wellhausen  school  does  not  pretend  to  settle  the  age 
and  relations  of  documents  or  codes  by  critical  considera- 
tions alone.  Criticism  is  to  be  guided,  and  its  conclusions 
are  to  be  checked,  at  every  step,  by  history.  A  parallel,  it 
is  alleged,  can  be  traced  between  the  course  of  the  history 
and  the  successive  stages  of  the  legislation.  Up  to  the  time 
of  Josiah,  it  is  held,  no  trace  can  be  discovered  of  the  ex- 
istence and  operation  of  any  body  of  laws  but  that  of  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant  in  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  With  the  finding  of 
"the  book  of  the  law"  in  Josiah's  reign,1  there  enters  a 
manifold  influence  of  the  spirit  and  teaching  of  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy,  strongly  reflected  in  the  later  literature — 
for  instance,  in  Jeremiah ;  but  no  sign  is  yet  shown  of  the 
peculiar  institutions  of  the  Levitical  Code.  These  first 
l>egin  to  be  visible  in  the  sketch  of  the  restored  temple  and 
its  ordinances  in  Ezekiel  (chaps,  xl.  fi'.),  and  emerge  as  a 
definitely  completed  system  in  the  law-book  which  Ezra 
brought  with  him  from  Babylon,  and  gave  to  the  post-exilian 
community  in  Jerusalem.2  Thenceforth  they  rule  the  life 
of  the  nation.  The  ingenuity  of  the  new  scheme  is  un- 
doubted, and  the  acceptance  it  has  won  is  sufficient  evidence 

1  2  Kings  xxii. 

*  Ezra  vii. ;  Neh.  viii.     For  a  popular  statement  of  the  theory  of  the 
three  Codes  see  Professor  W.  R.  Smith's  O.T.  in  J.  C.,  Lects.  viii.,  i*. 


248       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

of  the  skill  with  which  it  has  been  expounded  and  defended. 
But  is  it  really  tenable  ?  Many  reasons — not  the  least 
cogent  of  them  derived  from  the  course  of  criticism  itself — 
convince  us  it  is  not.  We  shall  deal  in  this  chapter  with 
the  application  of  the  theory  to  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy.1 

I.  STATE  OF  THE  QUESTION  AND  GENERAL  VIEW 

The  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  in  its  main  part,  consists,  it 
is  well  known,  after  a  slight  introduction,  and  with  some 
connecting  notes,  of  three  hortatory  discourses  purporting 
to  have  been  delivered  by  Moses  in  the  Arabah*  of  Moab, 
shortly  before  his  death  (chaps,  i.  6-iv.  40,  v.-xxviii ;  xxix.  2- 
xxx.).  To  these  discourses  are  appended  an  account  of 
certain  closing  transactions  of  Moses  (chap,  xxxi.),  the  Song 
and  Blessing  of  Moses  (chaps,  xxxii.,  xxxiii.),  and  a  narrative 
of  Moses'  death  on  Mount  Nebo  (chaps,  xxxii.  48-52 ;  xxxiv.). 
The  longest  of  the  discourses  (chaps,  v.-xxviii.)  embraces  a  re- 
hearsal (chaps,  xii.  ff.),  in  the  form  of  popular  address,  of  the 
principal  laws  given  by  God  to  Moses  at  Horeb,  as  these 
were  to  be  observed  by  the  people  in  their  new  settlement 
in  Canaan.  There  is  general  agreement  that  the  laws  to 
which  reference  is  made  in  this  recapitulation  are  chiefly — 
though,  as  will  be  seen  after,  by  no  means  exclusively — those 
contained  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii.); 
but  they  are  handled  by  the  speaker,  not  literally,  but 
in  free  reproduction,  with  rhetorical  amplification  or 
abbreviation,  and  occasionally  modification  to  suit  new 
circumstances. 

Deuteronomy  is  the  one  book  of  the  Pentateuch  which 
might  seem  on  the  face  of  it  to  make  claim  to  direct  Mosaic 
authorship.  "Moses,"  it  is  declared,  after  the  rehearsal  is 
completed,  "wrote  this  law."3  This  view  of  its  origin 
modern  criticism  decisively  rejects ;  will  hardly  allow  even 

1  Graf  makes  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  his  starting-point.  His  work 
opens :  "The  composition  of  Deuteronomy  in  the  age  of  Josiah  is  one  of  the 
most  generally  accepted  results  of  the  historical  criticism  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, for  all  who  do  not  simply  ignore  these  results." — Geschicht.  Biicher, 
p.  1  ;  cf.  p.  4. 

1  "That  is,  the  deep  valley  running  north  and  south  of  the  Dead  Sea" 
(R.V.).  Usually  (in  P)  Arboth,  the  steppes  or  plains  of  Moab.  See  an 
interesting  description  in  an  article  on  The  Steppes  of  Moab,  by  Professor  G.  B. 
Gray  in  Expositor,  January  1905. 

5  Deut.  xxxi.  9,  24-26  ;  see  below,  pp.  262  ff. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       249 

to  be  discussed.1  It  was  De  Wette's  achievement  in  criticism, 
as  we  saw,  that  he  relegated  Deuteronomy  to  the  age  of 
Josiah ;  and  in  this  judgment  the  great  majority  of  critics 
now  follow  him,  only  that  a  few  carry  back  the  composition 
of  the  book  a  reign  or  two  earlier — to  the  time  of  Manasseh 
or  of  Hezekiah.  Views  differ  as  to  how  the  book  is  to  be 
regarded — whether  as  a  pseudograph  ("forgery"),  or  as  a 
free  composition  in  the  name  and  spirit  of  Moses  without 
intention  to  deceive ;  but  it  is  generally  agreed  that,  in  its 
present  form,  it  is  a  production  of  the  prophetic  age,  and 
has  for  its  leading  aim  the  centralising  of  worship  at  the 
sanctuary  at  Jerusalem.  The  reasons  given  for  this  view 
are  its  prophetic  tone  and  standpoint,  its  obvious  connection 
with  the  work  of  reformation,  the  irreconcilability  of  its  law 
of  the  central  sanctuary  with  the  older  history,  incon- 
sistencies with  earlier  legislation,  etc.  A  main  objection  of 
the  older  critics  was  its  alleged  incompatibility  with  the 
Levitical  legislation,  then  believed  to  be  in  substance 
Mosaic:2  but  the  newer  criticism  has  taken  the  ground 
from  this  objection  by  putting  the  Levitical  laws  still  later 
than  Deuteronomy — in  the  exile. 

What  weight  is  to  be  allowed  to  these  opinions  is  con- 
sidered below.  The  composition  of  a  book  of  exhortation  or 
instruction  in  the  form  of  addresses  by  Moses — provided 
this  is  only  literary  dress,  with  honest  motive  in  the  writer 
— is  not  a  priori  to  be  ruled  out  as  inadmissible,  or  incom- 
patible with  just  views  of  Scripture.3  The  only  question  is 
whether  Deuteronomy  is  a  book  of  this  character,  or,  if  it  is 
so,  in  what  sense  and  to  what  extent  it  is  so,  and  to  what 
age  it  belongs.  On  the  other  hand,  we  cannot  shut  our  eyes 
to  certain  far-reaching  consequences  of  the  acceptance  of 
the  critical  view.  If  Deuteronomy  is  a  work  of  the  age 
of  Josiah,  then,  necessarily,  everything  in  the  other  Old 
Testament  books  which  depends  on  Deuteronomy  —  the 
Deuteronomic  revisions  of  Joshua  and  Judges,  the  Deutero- 

1  Cf.  Graf,  above.  Wellhausen  says  :  "About  the  origin  of  Deuteronomy 
there  is  still  less  dispute  ;  in  all  circles  where  appreciation  of  scientific 
results  can  be  looked  for  at  all,  it  is  recognised  that  it  was  composed  in  the 
same  age  as  that  in  which  it  was  discovered,  and  that  it  was  made  the  rule 
of  Josiah 's  reformation,  which  took  place  about  a  generation  before  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  by  the  Chaldeans." — Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  9. 

8  Cf.  Blcek,  Introd.  i.  pp.  328  ft". 

*  Ecclesiastes,  e.g.,  put  into  the  mouth  of  Solomon,  is  generally  admitted, 
even  by  conservative  critics,  to  be  a  work  of  this  kind. 


250      DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

iiomic  allusions  and  speeches  in  the  Books  of  Kings,1 
narratives  of  facts  based  on  Deuteronomy — e.g.,  the  blessings 
and  cursings,  and  writing  of  the  law  on  stones,  at  Ebal,2  all 
must  be  put  later  than  that  age.  If,  again,  it  be  the  case 
that  the  Levitical  laws  are  later  than  Deuteronomy,  this 
requires  the  carrying  of  these  down  to  where  the  critics 
place  them  —  at  or  near  the  exile.  The  very  gravity  of 
some  of  these  conclusions  is  our  warrant  for  raising  the 
question  —  Is  the  critical  view  correct  ?  The  course  of 
criticism  itself,  as  just  hinted,  despite  the  apparent 
unanimity,  forces  this  question  upon  us.  For,  as  we  soon 
come  to  discover,  even  on  the  subject  of  Deuteronomy,  the 
critical  school  is  rent  within  itself  by  divisions  which  raise 
the  greatest  doubts  as  to  the  soundness  of  the  original 
premises.  The  mania  for  disintegration — the  appetite  for 
which  seems  to  grow  with  what  it  feeds  on — has  been  at 
work  here  also.  In  the  Oxford  Hexateuch,  e.g., — so  far  to 
anticipate, — the  unity  of  Deuteronomy  with  which  criticism 
started — that  even  of  the  Code  in  chaps.  xii.-xxvi. — is  lost  in 
a  sort  of  dissolving  view.3  There  are,  however,  in  our  judg- 
ment, other  and  far  stronger  reasons  for  scepticism  than 
even  these  critical  vagaries.  We  hear  much  of  the  reasons 
for  putting  the  book  late,  many  of  them,  we  shall  find,  sadly 
overstrained ;  but  we  hear  little  or  nothing  of  the  enormous 
difficulties  attaching  to  the  critic's  own  hypothesis.  These 
are  either  ignored  completely,  or  are  toned  down  and 
minimised  till  they  are  made  to  appear  trifling.  We  are 
content,  when  the  case  has  been  presented,  to  let  the  reader 
judge  on  that  matter  for  himself.  The  time,  at  all  events, 
we  venture  to  think,  has  fully  come,  when  a  halt  should  be 
called,  and  the  question  should  be  boldly  put  for  recon- 
sideration— Is  the  Josianic  origin  of  Deuteronomy  a  result 

1  E.g.,  Solomon's  prayer,  1  Kings  viii.,  or  Amaziah's  sparing  the  children 
<>f  murderers,  2  Kings  xiv.  5,  6. 

2  Josh.  viii.  30  ff. 

3Cf.  Hex.  i.  pp.  92-96;  ii.  p.  246.  On  the  Code  it  is  said:  "The 
Code  and  its  envelopments,  homiletic  and  narrative,  hortatory  or  retro- 
spective, must  thus  be  regarded  as  tlie  product  of  a  long  course  of  literary 
activity  to  which  the  various  members  of  a  great  religious  school  contributed, 
the  affinities  with  the  language  and  thought  of  Jeremiah  [not  Jeremiah 'a 
affinities  with  Deuteronomy]  being  particularly  numerous."  To  this  group, 
it  is  added,  "other  additions  were  made  from  time  to  time,  involving  further 
dislocations "  ;  to  these  again  iinal  additions  when  JED  were  united 
with  P  (ii.  p.  302). 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       251 

of  scientific  criticism  which  the  impartial  mind  is  bound 
to  accept? 

IL  UNITY  AND  STYLE  OF  DEUTERONOMY 

As  clearing  the  way  for  the  discussion  of  date,  a  few 
words  may  be  said,  first,  on  the  subject  of  unity  and  style. 

1.  No  book  in  the  Bible,  it  may  be  safely  affirmed,  bears 
on  its  face  a  stronger  impress  of  unity  than  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy.  It  is  not  disputed  that,  in  the  form  in  which 
we  have  it,  the  book  shows  traces  of  editorial  redaction. 
The  discourses  are  put  together  with  introductory  and 
connecting  notes,1  and  the  last  part  of  the  work,  with  its 
account  of  Moses'  death,  and  in  one  or  two  places  what 
seem  unmistakable  indications  of  JE  and  P  hands,2  points 
clearly  to  such  redaction.  This  suggests  the  possibility  that 
such  archaeological  notices  as  occur  in  chap.  ii.  10-12,  20-22, 
and  perhaps  slight  annotations  elsewhere,  may  come  from  the 
same  revisional  hand.  But  these  minor,  and  in  general 
readily  distinguishable,  traces  of  editorial  labour  only  throw 
into  more  commanding  relief  the  general  unity  of  the  book 
in  thought  and  style.  The  most  ordinary  reader  cannot 
peruse  its  chapters  without  perceiving  that,  as  one  has  said, 
"the  same  vein  of  thought,  the  same  tone  and  tenor  of 
feeling,  the  same  peculiarities  of  thought  and  expression," 
characterise  it  throughout.  Accordingly,  up  to  a  compara- 
tively recent  period — till  Graf's  time — the  unity  of  Deutero- 
nomy, as  respects  the  discourses,  was  recognised  on  nearly 
every  hand  as  one  of  the  surest  results  of  criticism.3  It 

1  These,  however,  differ  little  in  style  from  the  rest  of  the  work. 

*  Chap,  zxxii.  48-.V2  is  generally  given  to  P,  and  chap.  xxzi.  14.  15,  23, 
to  JE  ;  both  are  found  in  chap,  xxziv. 

*  "  By  far  the  greater  part,"  says  De  Wette,  "  belong  to  oue  author." — 
Introd.  ii.  p.  131. 

"These"  (the  discourses),  says  Bleek,  "are  so  homogeneous  in  their 
language  and  whole  character  that  we  may  assume  as  certain — and  on  this 
point  there  is  scarcely  a  con  dieting  opinion — they  were  on  the  whole  com- 
pood  in  the  shape  in  which  we  now  have  them,  by  one  and  the  same 
author."— Introd.  L  p.  320. 

In  1864  Colenso  wrote:  "There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Deuteronomy  is 
throughout  the  work  of  the  same  hand,  with  the  exception  of  the  last 
chapter  .  .  .  the  book  is  complete  in  itself  and  exhibits  a  perfect  unity  of 
style  and  subject,"— Pent.,  Pop.  edit.  p.  185.  By  1871,  in  Pt.  vi.  of  his 
large  work,  he  had  come  to  believe  that  that  which  admitted  of  "  no  doubt  " 
earlier  wan  wrong,  and  that  the  original  Deuteronomy  began  with  chap.  v. 


252       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

was  not  doubted  that  the  book  found  in  the  temple  and 
read  to  Josiah  was  substantially  the  Deuteronomy  we  possess. 
This  can  no  longer  be  affirmed.  The  fine  art  of  distinc- 
tion acquired  in  the  dissection  of  the  other  Pentateuchal 
"  sources  "  soon  led,  as  it  could  not  but  do — as  it  would  do 
with  any  book  in  existence — to  the  discovery  of  abundant 
reasons  for  dividing  up  Deuteronomy  also,  first,  into  a 
number  of  larger  sections  of  different  ages,  then  into  a 
variety  of  smaller  pieces,1  till,  latterly,  as  indicated  above, 
the  unity  tends  entirely  to  disappear  in  the  flux  of  the 
labours  of  a  "school."  Kuenen,  who,  in  this  point,  is 
relatively  conservative,  extends  the  length  of  what  he  calls 
"  the  Deuteronomic  period,  which  began  in  the  year  621[2] 
B.C.,  and  which  called  the  additions  to  D1  into  existence," 
beyond  the  beginning  of  the  Babylonian  captivity.2  Broadly, 
however,  two  main  opinions  on  division  may  be  distinguished, 
in  regard  to  which  we  are  happy  in  being  able  to  leave  it 
with  the  critics  to  answer  each  other.  (1)  There  is  the 
view  of  Wellhausen,  Cornill,  and  others,  who  would  limit 
the  original  Book  of  Deuteronomy  (its  "  kernel ")  to  chaps, 
xil— xxvi. ;  but  this,  as  Dr.  Driver  justly  says, "  upon  grounds 
which  cannot  be  deemed  cogent." 8  Even  Kuenen  contests 
the  reasons  of  Wellhausen  on  this  point,  and  upholds  the 
unity  of  chaps,  v.— xxvi.4  He  gives  also  chap,  xxviii.  to  the 
author  of  these  chapters,  as  against  Wellhausen.5  (2) 
Kuenen,  however,  following  Graf,6  here  draws  a  new  line, 
and,  "  with  the  majority  of  recent  critics,"  says  Dr.  Driver, 
"declares  chaps,  i-iv.  to  be  the  work  of  a  different  hand."7 
The  resemblance  of  style  cannot  be  denied,  but,  says 
Kuenen,  "  the  great  similarity  of  language  must  be  explained 
as  the  result  of  imitation." 8  To  Dr.  Driver  himself  there 
seems  "  no  conclusive  reason  "  for  questioning  the  unity  of 

1  See  Note  A  on  the  Breaking  up  of  Deuteronomy. 

9  Hex.  p.  225.  8  Deut.  p.  Ixv. 

4  Hex.  pp.  113  ff.  •  Ibid.  pp.  126  ft. 

9  Cf.  Graf,  Geschicht.  Biicher.  pp.  4,  5.  It  is  interesting  to  notice  the 
reasons  given  by  Graf,  as  a  pioneer  in  this  division.  He  does  not  base  it  on 
style.  He  thinks,  indeed,  that  in  parts  a  greater  "  diffuseness"  may  be 
detected,  but  this  "may  perhaps  seem  too  subjective."  His  objective  reason 
is  that,  through  the  first  four  chapters,  Deuteronomy  is  "closely  bound 
with  the  preceding  books,"  even  as  "the  last  four  chapters  contain  the 
continuation  of  the  historical  narrations  of  those  books.'  This  does  not 
suit  his  hypothesis  that  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole  did  not  exist  in  Josiah'a 
day. 

7  Deut.  p.  Ixvii  ;  cf.  Kuenen,  Hex.  pp.  117  S.  e  Hex.  p.  117. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       253 

chaps,  i.-iii.  with  the  body  of  the  work,  and  he  doubts  whether 
"the  only  reason  of  any  weight"  for  questioning  chap.  iv. 
1-40  is  conclusive  either.1  Oettli,  another  witness,  says  on 
chaps.  L-iv. :  "  The  usage  of  speech  is  the  same  as  in  chaps. 
v.-xL"* 

For  ourselves,  the  broad  argument  from  unity  of  thought, 
language,  and  style  throughout  the  book  seems  overwhelming 
against  all  these  attempts  at  disintegration.  Dr.  Driver  is 
mainly  with  us  here.  He  points  out  how  "  particular  words, 
and  phrases,  consisting  sometimes  of  entire  clauses,  recur 
with  extraordinary  frequency,  giving  a  distinctive  colouring 
to  every  part  of  the  work."  8  Almost  more  important  is  his 
statement  that  "  the  majority  of  the  expressions  noted  occur 
seldom  or  never  besides;  others  occur  only  in  passages 
modelled  upon  the  style  of  Deuteronomy,  and  representing 
the  same  point  of  view."4  As  respects  the  opinions  of 
other  critics,  Dillmann,  Westphal,  Kittel,  Oettli,  Delitzsch 
and  others,  defend,  like  Dr.  Driver,  the  general  unity  of 
Deuteronomy.  Dillmann  and  Westphal,  however,  have 
hypotheses  of  transpositions,  etc.,  which  Dr.  Driver,  with 
good  reason,  rejects  as  "intrinsically  improbable."6  The 
unity  of  Deuteronomy,  it  may  be  concluded,  is  likely  to 
survive  the  attacks  made  upon  it. 

2.  An  interesting  question  arises  here,  with  considerable 
bearings  on  later  discussions — How  does  the  style  of  Deutero- 
nomy stand  related  to  that  of  the  other  Fentateuchal  books, 
and  to  those  passages  said  to  be  "  modelled  "  on  it  in  other 
Old  Testament  writings?  There  are  marked  differences 
between  the  Deuteronomic  and  the  JE  and  F  styles,  but  it 
is  important  that  these  should  not  be  exaggerated,  and  that 
affinities  also  should  be  noted.8  Delitzsch,  in  his  Genesis, 

1  DeiU.  p.  Izxii.  *  Com.  on  Dent.  p.  9. 

1  Dent.  p.  Ixxvii.  Dr.  Driver's  words  on  chape.  Y.-xxvi.,  xxviii.  are  worth 
quoting:  "There  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  doubting  that  the  whole  of 
these  chapters  formed  part  of  the  law-book  found  l>y  Hilkiah  ;  all  are 
written  in  the  same  style,  and  all  breathe  the  same  spirit,  the  only  material 
dillerence  being  that,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  jwrenetic  phraseology 
in  not  so  exclusively  predominant  in  chaps,  xii.-xxvi.,  xxviii.  as  it  is  in  chaps. 
v.-xi.  .  .  .  Chaps,  v.-xxvi.  may  thus  be  concluded,  without  hesitation,  lobe 
tlie  work  of  a  single  author ;  and  chap,  xxviii.  may  be  included  without 
serious  misgivings.  ' — Pp.  Ixv,  Ixvii. 

*  Ibid.  p.  Ixxxv. 

B  Il/id.  p.  Ixxv.  Kittel  sympathises  with  Dillmaun  and  Westphal.  See 
bis  Hist,  of  Hcbt.  i.  pp.  58  ft. 

*  See  Note  B  on  Deuteronomic  and  Priestly  Styles. 


254      DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

made  an  interesting  attempt,  from  comparison  of  the 
Decalogue  and  Book  of  the  Covenant  with  Deuteronomy 
(which  he  took  to  be  Mosaic  in  kernel),  to  arrive  at  an  idea 
of  the  mode  of  thought  and  language  of  Moses.  He  found 
many  Deuteronomic  assonances  in  the  above  writings,  and 
concluded  that  there  was  "  an  original  Mosaic  type,"  which 
he  termed  "  Jehovistic-Deuteronomic." l  It  is  at  any  rate 
certain  that  comparison  with  the  other  Pentateuchal  books 
reveals  some  curious  relations.  Of  all  styles,  that  of  the  so- 
called  P  is  furthest  removed  from  Deuteronomy;  yet  in 
Lev.  xxvi.,  which  is  of  the  P  type,  the  language  rises  to  a 
quite  Deuteronomic  strain  of  hortatory  and  admonitory 
eloquence.  The  resemblance  is  in  fact  so  remarkable  that 
it  is  commonly  allowed  that  a  close  relation  of  some  kind 
subsists  between  Lev.  xxvi.  and  Deuteronomy,  whether  of 
priority  or  dependence  on  the  part  of  Leviticus  remains  yet 
to  be  considered.2  The  affinities  of  Deuteronomy  with  JE 
are  much  closer.3  Such  are  clearly  traceable  in  the  Deca- 
logue and  Book  of  the  Covenant,4  whether  we  ascribe  the 
latter,  with  some  critics,  to  J,  or,  with  others,  to  E.6  More 
generally,  "  there  are,"  says  Dr.  Driver,  "  certain  sections  of 
JE  (in  particular,  Gen.  xxvi.  5 ;  Ex.  xiii.  3-16  ;  xv.  26  ;  xix. 
3-6;  parts  of  xx.  2-17;  xxiil  20-23;  xxxiv.  10-26),  in 
which  the  author  (or  compiler)  adopts  a  parenetic  tone,  and 
where  his  style  displays  what  may  be  termed  an  approxima- 
tion to  the  style  of  Deuteronomy ;  and  these  sections  appear 
to  have  been  the  source  from  which  the  author  of  Deutero- 
nomy adopted  some  of  the  expressions  currently  used  by 
him."8  Not,  it  will  be  observed,  borrowed  from  Deutero- 
nomy,— a  proof,  surely,  of  an  early  Deuteronomic  type. 

1  Genesis,  pp.  29-32. 

8  Of.  Colenso,  Pent.,  Pt.  vi.  pp.  4  ff. ;  and  see  on  Law  of  Holiness  below, 
Chap.  IX.  pp.  308  ff.  On  P  phrases  in  Deuteronomy,  see  below,  p.  277. 

*  Some  older  critics,  as  Stahelin,  even   attributed   the  composition   of 
Deuteronomy  to  the  Jehovist.     De  Wette  writes  of  Deuteronomy:  "By 
far  the  greater  part  belongs  to  one  author,  and,   as  it  appears,   to  the 
Jehovistic,  of  which  it  has  numerous  characteristic  marks." — Introd,  ii.  p.  131 . 

4  Cf.  Deli tzsch  above.  Wellhausen — Dillmann  also  —  explains  the  refer- 
ences by  a  "  back -current "  from  Deuteronomy.  But  the  Decalogue,  whether 
provided  with  "  enlargements  "  or  not,  must  in  its  present  form,  as  incorpor- 
ated in  the  ,IE  history,  have  been  older  than  Deuteronomy  (on  critical  date 
of  that  book).  So  with  the  Book  of  the  Covenant. 

•  See  above,  p.  231  ;  below,  p.  276. 

6  Deut.  pp.  Ixxvii-lxxviii ;  cf.  pp.  Ixxxv-vi.  Delitzsch  also  finds 
Deuteronomic  traces  occasionally  in  Genesis  (e.g.,  chap.  xxvi.  5).  Coleuso 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       255 

Still  more  interesting  in  this  connection  are  certain 
passages  in  Joshua,  Judges,  and  Samuel,  described  by 
Dr.  Driver  as  "  pre-Deuteronomic  "  (i.e.,  pre- Josianic),  and 
"allied  to  E,"  yet  which  have  affinities  in  thought  and 
expression  to  Deuteronomy.1  And  a  last  interesting  and 
curious  fact,  as  bearing  on  the  alleged  "modelling"  on 
Deuteronomy,  is  that,  if  Dr.  Driver  is  correct,  the  purity 
of  the  Deuteronomic  revisers'  style  seems  to  diminish  as 
we  recede  further  in  the  history  from  the  Mosaic  age. 
It  is,  he  tells  us,  most  "  strongly -marked  "  in  Joshua  and 
Judges,  hardly  appears  in  Samuel  at  all,  is  mingled  with 
other  forms  of  expression  in  Kings.  "  It  is  interesting  to 
note,"  he  observes,  "what  is  on  the  whole  an  interesting 
accumulation  of  deviations  from  the  original  Deuteronomic 
type,  till  in,  e.g.,  2  Kings  xvii.  it  is  mingled  with  phrases 
derived  from  the  Book  of  Kings  itself,  Judges,  and 
Jeremiah."  *  The  inference  we  are  disposed  to  draw  from 
these  facts  is  not  quite  that  of  the  learned  author.  They 
appear  to  us  to  point  to  a  much  earlier  dating  and  influence 
of  Deuteronomy  than  he  would  allow. 

III.  DIFFICULTIES  OF  CRITICAL  THEORY  ON  AGE 
AND  ORIGIN 

We  now  approach  the  central  problem  of  the  aye  and 
origin  of  the  book.  Was  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  as  the 
critics,  with  nearly  united  voice,  allege,  a  production  of  ihe 
age  of  Josiah,  or  of  one  of  his  immediate  predecessors  ?  If 
not,  what  were  the  circumstances  of  its  origin  ?  It  is 
extremely  important  to  observe  that  for  most  of  the 
critics  thia  question  is  already  settled  before  they  begin. 
Deuteronomy  is  universally  allowed  to  presuppose,  and  to 

finds  the  hand  of  the  Deuteronomist  traceable  from  Genesis  to  2  Kings 
(Pent.,  Pt  vi.  p.  28).  He  finally  finds  117  Deuteronomic  verses  in  Genesis, 
138J  in  Exodus,  and  156J  in  Numbers  (Pt.  vii.  pp.  i-vi ;  A  pp.  pp.  145  if.). 
Kuenen  points  out  that  Wellhausen  approaches  the  positions  of  Stiihelin 
and  Colenso  "  when,  from  time  to  time,  he  notes  a  relationship  between  JE, 
»'.«.,  the  redactor  of  the  two  works  J  and  K,  and  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy, 
and  even  asks  whether  JE  may  not  have  been  revised  by  a  deuteronoimr 
redactor." — Hex.  p.  137. 

1  Jbid.  p.  Ixxxvi.  Cf.  Introd.  pp.  106,  107,  etc.  Such  passages  aro 
parts  of  Josh.  xxiv.  1-26  ;  Judjj.  vi.  7-10  ;  x.  6-16  ;  1  Sam.  ii.  17-36  ; 
parts  of  1  Sum.  vii.-viii.  ;  x.  11-27,  etc. 

*  Ibid.  p.  xcii. 


256       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

be  dependent  on,  the  laws  and  history  contained  in  JE, 
and,  these  writings  being  brought  down  by  general  con- 
sent to  the  ninth  or  eighth  century  B.C.,  a  later  date  for 
Deuteronomy  necessarily  follows.1  We  decline  to  bind 
ourselves  in  starting  by  this  or  any  similar  assumption.  It 
may  well  be  that  the  result  of  the  argument  will  rather 
be  to  push  the  date  of  JE  farther  back,  than  to  make 
Deuteronomy  late.  Eeasons  for  the  late  date  are  found 
in  the  narrative  of  the  finding  of  "the  book  of  the  law" 
in  2  Kings  xxii.,  in  statements  of  Deuteronomy  itself,  and 
in  the  character  of  its  laws,  compared  with  the  earlier  code, 
and  with  the  history.2  It  seems  to  us,  on  the  other  hand, 
that,  under  these  very  heads,  insoluble  difficulties  arise, 
which  really  amount  to  a  disproof  of  the  critical  theory. 
Eeversing  the  usual  procedure,  it  will  be  our  aim,  first, 
to  set  forth  these  difficulties  which  call  for  a  revisal  of 
the  current  view,  then  to  weigh  the  force  of  the  considera- 
tions adduced  in  its  support. 

1.  Investigation  naturally  begins  with  the  narrative  of 
the  finding  of  "  the  look  of  the  law  "  in  the  eighteenth  year 
of  the  reign  of  Josiah  (B.C.  622),  which  criticism  holds  to  be 
the  first  appearance  of  Deuteronomy.  The  story,  in  brief, 
is  that,  during  repairs  in  the  temple,  Hilkiah  the  high 
priest  found  a  book,  identified  and  described  by  him  as 
"  the  book  of  the  law."  He  announced  his  discovery  to 
Shaphan  the  scribe,  who,  after  reading  the  book  himself, 
presented  and  read  it  to  the  king.  Josiah  was  extra- 
ordinarily moved  by  what  he  heard,  confessed  the  guilt 
of  the  "  fathers "  in  not  hearkening  to  the  words  of  this 
book,  sent  to  inquire  of  Jehovah  at  the  prophetess  Huldah, 
finally,  after  the  holding  of  a  great  assembly,  and  the  renewal 
of  the  nation's  covenant  with  God  on  the  basis  of  the  book, 
instituted  and  carried  through  the  remarkable  "  reformation  " 

1  "Of  course, "remarks  Dr.  Driver,  "for those  who  admit  this  [(viz.,  that 
JE  is  long  subsequent  to  Moses)],  the  post-Mosaic  authorship  of  Deuteronomy 
follows  at  onre  ;  for,  as  was  shown  above,  it  is  dependent  ujton,  and  conse- 
quently later  than,  JE." — Dent.  p.  xlii.     Thus  one  part  of  the  theory  rules 
another. 

2  Dr.  Driver  again  says :  "As  a  work  of  the  Mosaic  age,  Deuteronomy, 
I  must  own,   though  intelligible,  if  it  stood  perfectly  alone, — i.e.,  if  the 
history  of  Israel  had  been  other  than  it  was, — does  not  seem   to  me   in- 
telligible, when  read  in  the  light  shod  upon  it  by  other  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament." — Ibid.  Pref.  p.  xii.     This  seems  to  show  that  it  is  the  history 
(or  view  taken  of  it)  which  really  decides  the  late  date. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       257 


with  his  name.1  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
the  book  which  called  forth  this  reformation,  embraced,  if 
it  did  not  entirely  consist  of,  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy.2 
The  critical  theory,  in  its  usual  form,  is,  that  the  book  was 
composed  at  or  about  this  time,  and  was  deposited  in  the 
temple,  with  the  express  design  of  bringing  about  just  such 
a  result.  Is  this  credible  or  likely  ? 

(1)  Now,  if  anything  is  clear  on  the  face  of  the  narrative 
above  summarised,  it  surely  is,  that  this  finding  of  the  book 
of  the  law  in  the  temple  was  regarded  by  everybody  con- 
cerned as  the  genuine  discovery  of  an  old  lost  book,  and  that 
the  "  book  of  the  law  "  of  Moses.  This  is  evident  as  well 
from  the  terms  in  which  the  book  is  described  ("  the  book 
of  the  law,"3  "the  book  of  the  covenant,"4  "the  law  of 
Moses  "  6),  as  from  the  profound  impression  it  produced  on 
king  and  people,  and  from  the  covenant  and  reformation 
founded  on  it.  Hilkiah,  who  announced  its  discovery  in  the 
words,  "  I  have  found  the  book  of  the  law  in  the  house 
of  Jehovah,"6  the  king,  who  was  vehemently  distressed 
"because  our  fathers  have  not  hearkened  to  the  words  of 
this  book,"7  Huldah  the  prophetess,  who  confirmed  the 
threatenings  of  the  book,8  had  no  other  idea  of  it.  There 
is  not  a  whisper  of  doubt  regarding  its  genuineness  from 
any  side  —  from  priests  at  the  temple,  whose  revenues  it 
seriously  interfered  with,  from  prophets,  on  many  of  whom 
it  bore  hardly  less  severely,  from  the  people,  whose  mode 
of  life  and  religious  habits  it  revolutionised,  from  priests 
of  the  high  places,  whom  it  deposed,  and  whose  worship 
it  put  down  as  a  high  crime  against  Jehovah.  The  critics 

1  2  Kings  xxii.,  xxiii.  ;  cf.  2  Chr-^n.  xxxiv..  xxxv.  The  credence  accorded 
to  this  narrative  in  2  Kings  by  the  critics  contrasts  singularly  with  their 
free  treatment  of  other  parts  of  the  later  history  of  Kings,  e.g.,  the  reforms 
of  Hezekiah  (2  Kings  xviii.  4  If.)  questioned  by  Wellhausen,  Stade,  Smeixl, 
etr.),  and  the  deliverance  from  Sennacherib  (chap.  xix.  ;  cf.  H.  P.  Smith, 
O.  T.  Hist.  p.  245). 

*  The  narrative  in  Kings  generally  does  not  require,  though  at  points  it 
suggests,  more  (e.g.,  chap,  xxiii.  21)  ;  the  Chronicler's  account  of  the  great 
Pu-sover  implies  the  Mosaic  ordinance. 

»2  Kings  xxii.  8.  4  Chap,  xxiii.  2.  •  Chap,  xxiii.  24,  26. 

•  Chap.  xxii.  8. 

7  Chap.  xxii.  13;  cf.  Jer.  xxxiv.  13  ff.     Professor  W.  R.  Smith  could 
persuade  himself  that  "  it  was  of  no  consequence  to  him  [JosiahJ  to  know  the 
exact  date  of  the  authorship  of  the  book"  —  O.T.  in  J.  C.     Not  ita  txact 
date,  perhaps,  but  its  antiquity  1 

8  L'hap.  xxii.  10. 

17 


258       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

themselves  do  not  dispute,  but  freely  allow,  that  it  was 
taken  for  a  genuinely  Mosaic  book,  and  that  it  was  this 
fact  which  gave  it  its  authority.  The  last  thing,  we  may 
be  certain,  that  would  enter  the  minds  of  Josiah  or  of 
those  associated  with  him,  was  that  the  book  which  so 
greatly  moved  them  was  one  newly  composed  by  prophetic 
or  priestly  men  of  their  own  circles.  This  was  a  point, 
moreover,  on  which  we  may  be  sure  that  king  and  people 
would  not  be  readily  deceived.  People  at  no  time  are  easily 
deceived  where  their  own  interests  or  privileges  are  con- 
cerned, but  in  this  case  there  were  special  difficulties.  A 
new  book,  after  all,  does  not  look  like  an  old  one ;  and  if 
high  priest,  scribe,  king,  prophetess,  were  misled  into 
thinking  that  they  were  dealing  with  an  old  Mosaic  book, 
when  the  parchment  in  their  hands  was  one  on  which 
the  ink  was  hardly  dry,  they  must  have  been  simpletons 
to  a  degree  without  parallel  in  history.  On  the  other 
hand,  assume  the  book  to  have  been  old,  mouldy,  de- 
faced, and  what  are  we  to  say  of  its  recent  origin  ?  Did  its 
authors,  as  Oettli  asks,  disfigure  the  book  to  make  it  look 
old?1 

(2)  To  these  objections,  there  is  but  one  plain  answer,  if 
the  Josianic  origin  of  the  book  is  to  be  upheld,  and  that  is 
an  answer  which  the  more  influential  leaders  of  the  new 
school  do  not  hesitate  to  give — the  book  was  a  result  of 
pious  fraud,  or  of  a  deliberate  intention  to  deceive.  It  was 
a  "  pseudograph  " ;  in  popular  speech,  a  "  forgery."  This, 
without  any  disguise,  is  the  view  taken  of  the  matter  by 
Ileuss,  Graf,  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  Stade,  Cornill,  Cheyne, 
etc.,2  as  by  Colenso,3  and  many  older  critics.  Many 
believing  scholars,  to  their  credit,  repudiate  it,  but  their 
scruples  are  treated  by  the  real  masters  of  the  school  as 
the  result  of  timidity  and  weak  compromise.  Yet,  as 
Klostermann  says,  in  criticising  it,  "  What  a  swallowing  of 

1  Deut.  Introd.  p.  19. 

a  One  of  Reuss'  propositions  (endorsed  by  Wellhansen)  is  :  "  Deuteronomy 
is  the  book  which  the  priests  pretended  to  have  found  in  the  temple  in  the 
time  of  Josiah." — Wellhansen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  4.  For  the  views  of  other 
scholars,  see  Note  C  on  Deuteronomy  as  Fraus  Pia. 

8  Colenso,  who  thinks  it  likely  that  Jeremiah  was  the  falsarius,  writes  : 
"  What  it  [the  inner  voice]  ordered  him  to  do,  he  would  do  without  hesita- 
tion, as  by  direct  command  of  God  ;  and  all  considerations  of  morality  or 
immorality  would  either  not  be  entertained,"  etc.  (Pent.  Pop.  edit  1864, 
p.  201  ;  cf.  pp.  196  ff.). 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       259 

camels  is  hero!"1  Tt  is  a  view  which,  despite  the  excuse 
attempted  to  be  made  for  it  by  talk  about  the  "  less  strict " 
notions  of  truth  in  those  days,2  shocks  the  moral  sense,  arid 
is  not  for  a  moment  to  be  entertained  of  a  circle  to  which 
the  prophet  Jeremiah,  with  his  scathing  denunciations  of 
lying  and  deceit,  and  of  the  "false  pen  of  the  scribes"  that 
"  wrought  falsely, ' 8  belonged.  Not  that  oven  on  this 
supposition  the  difficulty  of  the  transaction  is  removed. 
Hilkiah  might  be  a  party  with  prophets  and  priests  in  an 
intrigue  to  palm  off  a  "  book  of  the  law  "  on  the  unsuspecting 
king;4  but  how  should  he  be  able  to  use  such  language  to 
Shaphan  as,  "  I  have  found  the  book  of  the  law  "  ?  or  how 
should  Josiah  speak  of  the  disobedience  of  the  "  fathers " 
to  commandments  which  he  must  have  been  aware  were  not 
known  to  them  ?  Is  it  not  apparent  that,  though  "  the 
book  of  the  law "  had  long  been  neglected,  disobeyed,  and 
allowed  to  become  practically  a  dead  letter,  men  still  knew 
of  the  existence  of  such  a  book,  and  had  sufficient  idea  of 
its  contents  to  be  able  to  recognise  it  when  this  old  temple 
copy,  which  had  evidently  been  left  to  lie  covered  with  ite 
dust,  one  does  not  know  how  long,  in  some  recess,  was 
suddenly  brought  to  light.  It  is  nothing  to  the  point  to 
urge,  in  answer,  that,  had  Deuteronomy  existed  earlier, 
there  could  not  have  been  that  long  course  of  flagrant 
violation  of  its  precepts  which  Josiah  deplores.  The  whole 
condition  of  Jerusalem  and  Judah  at  this  time,  as  described 
in  2  Kings  xxiii.,  was  in  flagrant  violation  of  far  more 
fundamental  statutes  than  that  of  the  central  sanctuary  in 
Deuteronomy.  Let  one  read,  e.g.,  the  account  of  the  state 
of  things  under  Manasseh,  or  in  Josiah's  time,  alongside 
of  such  a  sentence  as  the  following  from  Dr.  Driver: 
"Now  if  there  is  one  thing  which  (even  upon  the  most 
strictly  critical  premises)  is  certain  about  Moses,  it  is 
that  he  laid  the  greatest  stress  upon  Jehovah's  being 
Israel's  only  God,  who  tolerated  no  other  God  beside  Him, 
and  who  claimed  to  be  the  only  object  of  the  Israelite's 

1  Pent.  p.  97. 

*  Knenen,  Rel.  of  Isrofl,  ii.  p.  19.     See  Note  0. 

1  Jer.  viii.  8  ;  cf.  chajw.  v.  30,  81 ,  vi.  8-8,  etc.     See  below,  p.  294. 

4  The  extreme  improbability  of  Hilkiah  being  a  party  to  the  forgery  of 
a  work  which  (on  the  theory)  seriously  infringed  on  the  privileges  of  the 
Jerusalem  priesthood,  ia  pointed  out  by  many  writers  (W.  B.  Smith, 
Dillmann,  Kitu-1,  Driver,  etc.). 


260       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

allegiance."1  And  are  there  no  parallels  in  history,  both 
to  the  condition  of  neglect  into  which  the  book  of  the  law 
had  fallen,  and  to  the  startling  effect  of  the  timely  re- 
discovery of  a  book  long  forgotten?2 

(3)  In  light  of  these  facts,  it  is  not  a  little  singular  that 
Dr.  Driver,  in  repelling  the  charge  that  "if  the  critical 
view  of  Deuteronomy  be  correct,  the  book  is  a  'forgery,' 
the  author  of  which  sought  to  shelter  himself  under  a  great 
name,  and  to  secure  by  a  fiction  recognition  or  authority 
for  a  number  of  laws  'invented'  by  himself"8 — should  not 
make  it  clearer  than  he  does  that  this  opinion — represented 
by  him  as  a  groundless  "  objection  "  of  opponents — is,  so  far 
as  the  pseudographic  character  of  the  work  is  concerned, 
precisely  and  explicitly  that  of  the  heads  of  the  school  with 
which  "  the  critical  view  "  he  defends,  is  specially  associated. 
It  is  the  theory  also,  we  cannot  help  agreeing,  to  which  we 
are  logically  brought,  if  it  is  assumed  that  Deuteronomy  is 
really  a  product  of  the  age  of  Josiah,  in  which  it  was  found.4 
Dr.  Driver  himself,  however,  and,  as  already  said,  most 
believing  scholars,  separate  themselves  from  this  obnoxious 
hypothesis  of  deceit,  and,  to  explain  the  "  discovery  "  of  the 
book  by  Hilkiah,  commonly  suppose  that  it  belongs  to  a 
somewhat  earlier  period5 — e.g.,  to  the  reign  of  Manasseh, 
or  that  of  Hezekiah,  or  the  age  immediately  before  Hezekiah.6 

1  Deut.  p.  lix. 

*  The  general  neglect  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  age  before  the  Reformation, 
and  the  effect  on  Luther's  mind  and  work  of  the  discovery  of  a  complete 
copy  of  the  Bible  at  Erfurt,  offer  a  partial  illustration.     For  a  remarkable 
instance  of  the  total  oblivion  of  a  noted  code  of  laws  in  the  Middle  Ages,  see 
Note  D  on  Oblivion  of  Charlemagne's  Code. 

*  Deut.  p.  Ixi.     Dr.  Driver  refers  to  the  plot  theory  on  p.  liv.     Even  as 
regards  "invention,"  it  may  be  noticed  that  this  was  the  view  of  De  Wette, 
who  first  set  the  ball  a-rolling.     The   book  may  be  proved,  De  Wette 
thought,  "  to  rest  entirely  on  fiction,  and  indeed  so  much  so  that,  while  the 
preceding  books  amidst  myths  contained  traditional  data,  here  tradition 
does  not  seem  in  any  instance  to  have  supplied  any  materials." — Beitrage, 
ii.  pp.  385  ff.  ;  cf.  i.  p.  268. 

4  Cf.  Kittel,  Hist,  of  Hebrews,  i.  pp.  64  ff. 

8  Dr.  Driver  says  that  "  the  narrative  of  the  discovery  certainly  supports 
the  view  that  the  book  which  was  found  was  one  which  had  been  lost  for 
some  time,  not  one  which  had  just  been  written  "  (p.  liv).  His  own  mind 
leans  to  an  origin  in  the  childhood  of  Josiah.  But  does  this  answer  to  the  ' 
idea  of  a  book  "  lost "  for  some  time,  and,  apart  from  fraud,  what  would  be 
the  appearance  of  such  a  book  ? 

«So  Ewald,  Bleek,  W.  R.  Smith,  Kittel,  Kantzsch,  etc.  (Manasseh); 
Delitzsch,  Riehm,  Westphal,  Oettli,  Konig,  Klostermann,  etc.  (Hezekiah  or 
before). 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       261 

The  moral  qualms  which  load  to  these  theories  are  to  1. 
respected,  but  those  who  adopt  them  now  labour  under  tin- 
disadvantage  that,  having  cut  themselves  away  from  the 
age  of  Josiah,  they  have  no  fixed  principle  to  go  by,  and, 
apart  from  a  priori  assumptions  in  regard  to  the  course  of 
development,  there  is  no  particular  reason  why  they  should 
stop  where  they  do,  and  not  carry  the  date  of  Deuteronomy 
much  higher  stilL  They  find  themselves  exposed  also  to 
the  attacks  of  the  advocates  of  the  Josiah  date,  who  point 
out  the  unsuitability  of  Deuteronomy  to  Manasseh's  gloomy 
reign  ("the  calm  and  hopeful  spirit  which  the  author 
displays,  and  the  absence  even  of  any  covert  allusion  to  the 
special  troubles  of  Manasseh's  reign  " J) ;  but,  above  all,  urge 
what  Kuenen  calls  "  the  great,  and  in  my  opinion  fatal 
objection,"  "  that  it  makes  the  actual  reformation  the  work 
of  those  who  had  not  planned  it,  but  were  blind  tools  in  the 
service  of  the  unknown  projector."2  It  would,  indeed,  be 
strange  procedure  on  the  part  of  anyone  composing  a  work 
in  the  spirit  of  Moses,  yet  not  desiring  to  pass  it  off  as  other 
than  his  own,  to  deposit  it  secretly  in  the  temple,  there  to 
lie  undiscovered  for  perhaps  a  century — finally,  in  the  irony 
of  history,  on  its  coming  to  light,  to  be  accepted  as  a  work 
of  Moses,  and  continuously  regarded  as  such  by  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  world  for  over  two  millenniums !  "  Fatal " 
objections  thus  seem  to  lie  at  the  door  of  all  these  hypotheses, 
and  we  are  driven  to  ask  whether  some  other  explanation  is 
not  imperative. 

(4)  It  may  be  added  that  the  critics  are  seriously  at 
variance  on  another  point,  viz.,  whether  the  author  of 
Deuteronomy  in  Josiah's — or  an  earlier — age  is  to  be  sought 
for  among  the  prophets  or  the  priests.  It  seems  a  curious 
question  to  ask,  after  starting  with  the  view  that 
Deuteronomy  was  a  "  prophetic "  programme ;  yet  it  is 
one  of  no  small  importance  in  its  bearings  on  origin,  and 
the  reasons  against  either  view,  on  the  critical  premises, 
seem  extremely  strong.  If  a  prophet,  why,  unlike  the 
practice  of  other  prophets,  did  he  adopt  this  device  of 
clothing  his  message  in  the  form  of  addresses  of  Moses, 

1  Deut.  p.  liii. 

1  Hex.  p.  219.  Kuenen  a<Ms  :  "  The  reassigned  to  D  himself  is  almost 
equally  improbable  :  for  he  is  made  to  commit  his  aspirations  to  writing, 
urge  their  realisation  with  intense  fervour — and  leave  the  result  to  chance" 
(p.  220).  Cf.  Carpenter,  Htx.  i.  j-p.  96-97. 


262       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

and  whence  the  strength  of  his  interest  in  the  sanctuary, 
its  worship,  and  its  feasts  ?  As  Kuenen,  who  favours  the 
view  of  the  priestly  origin,  points  out :  "  It  is  obvious  from 
Deut.  xxiv.  8,  and  still  more  from  chaps,  xvii.  18,  xxxi.  9, 
that  the  Deuteronomist  had  relations  with  the  priesthood 
of  Jerusalem.  In  chap.  xiv.  3-21  he  even  incorporates  a 
priestly  torah  on  clean  and  unclean  animals  into  his  book 
of  law."1  But  then,  on  the  other  hand,  if  a  priest, 
how  account  for  the  remodelling  of  the  older  laws  in  a 
direction  inimical  to  the  prerogatives  of  the  Jerusalem 
priesthood  ? z  The  last  thing  one  would  look  for  from  a 
priest  would  be  the  concocting  of  ordinances  which  meant 
the  sharing  of  his  temple  perquisites  with  all  Levites  who 
chose  to  claim  them.  The  idea,  again,  of  a  joint  composition 
by  prophets  and  priests  is  not  favoured  by  the  conditions  of 
the  age,  and  is  opposed  to  the  unity  of  style  and  spirit  in 
the  book.  This  apparent  conflict  of  interests,  so  difficult  to 
harmonise  with  the  time  of  Josiah,  seems  to  point  to  an 
origin  far  nearer  the  fountainhead. 

2.  The  next  natural  branch  of  inquiry  relates  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  book  itself  as  to  the  circumstances  of  its  own  origin. 
To  the  ordinary  reader  it  might  seem  as  if  no  doubt  whatever 
could  rest  on  this  point.  The  book  would  appear  in  the 
most  explicit  fashion  to  claim  for  itself  a  Mosaic  origin. 
Not  only  are  the  discourses  it  contains  affirmed  to  have 
been  delivered  by  Moses  in  the  Arobah  of  Moab — this  might 
be  accounted  for  by  literary  impersonation — but  at  the  close 
there  are  express  attestations  that  Moses  ivrote  his  law, 
and  delivered  it  into  the  custody  of  the  priests  for  safe 
preservation.  "  And  Moses  wrote  this  law,"  we  read,  "  and 
delivered  it  unto  the  priests,  the  sons  of  Levi.  .  .  .  When 
Moses  had  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  law  in 
a  book,  until  they  were  finished,  Moses  commanded  the 
Levites,  which  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah, 
saying,  Take  this  book  of  the  law,  and  put  it  by  the  side  of 
the  ark,"  etc.3  In  view  of  these  declarations,  one  does  not 
well  know  what  to  make  of  the  remarkable  statement  of 
Dr.  Driver  that,  "  though  it  may  appear  paradoxical  to  say 

1  Hex.  p.  273.     It  is  to  be  remembereil  that  Hilkiah  was  a  priest. 

a  Cf.  Kaiitz>ch,  in  criticism  of  this  view,  Int.  of  O.T.,  pp.  64-65. 

8  Deut.  xxxi.  9,  24-26.  The  Song  and  the  Blessing  of  Moses  are  also  said 
to  be  from  Moses — the  former  to  have  been  written  by  him  (chaps,  xxxi.  22, 
xxxiii.  1). 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       263 

so,  Deuteronomy  does  not  claim  to  be  "written  by  Moses."1 
The  paradox  Dr.  Driver  defends  is,  at  all  events,  not  one 
accepted  by  the  leaders  of  the  critical  school,  who  lay  stress 
upon  the  fact  that  the  writer  obviously  intended  his  book  to 
be  received  as  genuinely  Mosaic,  and  in  that  way  sought  to 
gain  authority  for  its  teachings.2  It  was  undoubtedly  as  a 
genuine  work  of  Moses — subject,  of  course,  to  any  necessary 
revisional  processes — that  it  was  received  by  Josiah  and  his 
contemporaries. 

There  is,  however,  the  possibility  of  a  mediating  view, 
which  must  in  justice  be  taken  account  of,  though  it  is  not  one, 
it  seems  to  us,  which  greatly  helps  the  newer  critics.  First, 
we  should  say,  as  respects  the  scope  of  the  above  testimony, 
we  entirely  agree  that  the  words, "  Moses  wrote  this  law," 
cannot,  in  the  connection  in  which  they  stand,  be  fairly 
extended,  as  has  sometimes  been  attempted,  to  cover  the 
whole  Pentateuch.8  On  the  other  hand,  we  see  no  fitness 
or  probability  in  confining  them,  with  Delitzsch4  and  many 
others,  to  the  "  kernel  "  of  the  Mosaic  law  in  chaps.  xii.-xxvi. 
The  word  torah  must  be  taken  here  in  its  widest  sense  as 
covering  the  hortatory  and  admonitory  parts  of  the  book, 
not  less  than  its  strictly  legal  portions.6  The  godly  of  later 
times,  who  found  their  souls'  nourishment  and  delight  in 

1  Introd.  p.  89.  The  fact  that  the  above  statements  are  made  in  the  third 
person  does  not  alter  their  purport.  Dilltnann's  explanation  of  the  notice 
of  authorship  is  singularly  roundabout  and  l»me.  "The  statement," 
he  says,  "  is  satisfactorily  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  writer  was  convinced 
of  the  antiquity  and  Mosaic  character  of  the  law  [represented  as]  expounded 
by  Moses,  and  it  was  precisely  for  one  who  wished  to  give  out  the  old 
Mosaic  law  in  a  renewed  form  that  an  express  statement  of  the  writing  down 
and  preservation  of  that  law  was  indispensable." — Num.-Jos.  p.  601. 
"  Indispensable"  to  assert  that  as  a  fact  which  existed  nowhere  bat  in  his 
own  imagination  ! 

1  De  Wette  says  :  ' '  The  author  of  Deuteronomy,  as  it  appears,  would  have 
us  regard  liLs  whole  book  as  the  work  of  Moses." — Introd.  li.  p.  159.  Cornill 
instances  Deuteronomy  as  "an  instructive  proof  that  only  under  the  name 
of  Moses  did  a  later  writer  believe  himself  able  to  reckon  on  a  hearing  as  a 
religious  lawgiver." — Evnleit.  p.  37. 

'Thus  Hengstenberjr,  Hdvernick,  etc. 

4  Genesis,  i.  pp.  36-37. 

'  Cf.  chap.  i.  5  :  "  began  Moses  to  declare  this  law."  There  is  little  force 
in  the  objection  drawn  from  tlie  command  to  write  the  law  on  plastered 
stones  on  Mount  Ebal  (Deut.  xxvii.  8).  The  recently  discovered  Code  of 
Hammurabi  shows  what  was  possible  to  ancient  times  in  tin-  way  of  writing 
on  stones.  It  is  stated  by  Dr.  Green  that  "  the  famous  Behistun  inscription 
of  Darius  in  its  triple  form  is  twice  as  long  as  thi«  entire  Code  (Chaps,  xii. 
xxvi.),  besides  being  carved  in  bold  characters  on  the  solid  rock,  and  in  a 
position  difficult  of  access  on  the  mountain  side." — JJoses  and  Prophet »,  p.  53 


264       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

the  "  law  of  Jehovah  "  (cf.  Pss.  i.,  xix.  7  ff.,  cxix.,  etc.),  had,  we 
may  be  sure,  other  material  before  them  than  the  bare  legal 
precepts  of  either  the  Deuteronomic  or  the  Priestly  Code.1 
The  notice  can  only  fairly  be  understood  as  meaning  that 
Moses  put  in  writing,  and  delivered  to  the  priests,  the 
substance,  if  not  the  letter,  of  what  he  had  just  been  saying ; 
and  such  a  statement,  once  and  again  repeated  in  the  book 
(cf.  in  addition  to  the  above,  chap.  xvii.  18),  must,  for  those 
who  recognise  its  honesty  of  intent,  always  have  the  greatest 
weight.  But,  this  being  granted,  the  question  remains 
whether  the  words  "  this  law "  necessarily  apply  to  the 
discourses  precisely  as  we  have  them,  i.e.,  in  their  present 
literary  form.  Assuming  that  Moses,  as  Delitzsch  conjectures, 
"  before  his  departure  left  behind  with  the  priestly  order 
an  autograph  torah  to  be  preserved  and  disseminated,"2 
may  we  not  reasonably  suppose  that,  in  the  book  as  we 
possess  it,  we  have,  not  a  literal  transcription  of  that  torah, 
but  a  "free  literary  reproduction"  of  its  contents,  in  the 
form  best  adapted  for  general  instruction  and  edification, 
with  occasional  developments  and  modifications  suited  to 
the  time  of  its  origin  ?  So  again  Delitzsch  and  not  a  few 
others  think.  "  The  Deuteronomian,"  he  says,  "  has  com- 
pletely appropriated  the  thoughts  and  language  of  Moses, 
and  from  a  genuine  oneness  of  mind  with  him  reproduces 
them  in  the  highest  intensity  of  divine  inspiration."  3 

There  will  be  little  doubt,  we  think,  as  to  the  admissibility 
of  this  "  reproduction "  theory,  if  the  circumstances  are 
shown  to  require  it.  It  implies  no  purpose  to  deceive,  and 
stands  on  a  different  footing  from  theories  which,  under  the 
name  "development,"  assume  the  attribution  to  Moses  of 
ideas,  laws,  and  institutions,  not  only  unknown  to  him,  but,  if 
the  critical  hypothesis  is  correct,  actually  in  conflict  with  his 
genuine  legislation.  Perhaps,  also,  in  a  modified  degree, 

1  See  below,  pp.  376-77.  2  Gene*is,  i.  p.  35. 

3  Ibid.  Cf.  also  art.  in  Luthardt's  Zeitschrift,  1880,  pp.  503-5.  For 
related  views,  cf.  Oettli,  Dent.  Introd.  pp.  16-18  ;  Ladd's  Doct.  of  Sac.  Scrip- 
lure,  i.  p.  527-29  ;  Robertson,  Early  Religion,  etc.,  pp.  420-25.  Dr.  Driver 
approximates  to  this  vi«-w.  "Dftiteronomy,"  he  says,  "may  be  described  as 
the  prophetic  reformulation,  and  adajitation  to  new  needs,  of  an  older  legislation. 
It  is  probable  that  there  was  a  tradition,  if  not  a  written  record,  of  a  final 
legislative  address  delivered  by  Moses  in  the  steppes  of  Moab  ;  the  plan 
followed  by  the  author  would  rest  upon  a  more  obvious  motive,  if  he  thus 
worked  upon  a  traditional  basis  "  (p.  Ixi).  This  too  much  ignores  the  strong 
positive  testimony  that  Moses  did  write  his  last  discourses. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY        265 

some  recasting  in  form  and  language,  in  the  sense  of  this 
hypothesis,  must  be  admitted,  if  we  suppose — what  is  very 
probable — that  the  script  which  Moses  used  was  other 
than  the  ancient  Hebrew,  or  grant  that  the  discourses  were 
written  out  rather  in  substance  than  in  full  detail — leaving 
it  to  the  transcriber  or  interpreter  to  fill  out,  and  give  the 
living  impression  of  scene  and  voice.  If  this  was  done  (as 
we  believe  it  must  have  been)  when  the  remembrance  or 
tradition  of  Moses  and  his  time  was  still  vivid  and  reliable, 
it  would  give  us  a  book  such  as  we  have  in  Deuteronomy. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  so  much  is  admitted  about  Moses,  the 
question  which  must  always  recur  regarding  this  theory,  even 
to  the  very  limited  extent  indicated,  is — Cui  bono  ?  If,  as 
Delitzsch  supposes,  the  contents  of  Deuteronomy  are  sub- 
stantially Mosaic, — if  Moses  really  delivered  testamentary 
discourses,  and  in  some  form  wrote  them  down  for  posterity, 
— whence  the  necessity  for  this  literary  "  double  "  to  re- write 
and  improve  them  ?  Why  should  the  form  in  which  Moses 
spoke  and  wrote  them  not  be  substantially  that  in  which  we 
have  them  ?  Shall  we  suppose  that  the  actual  discourses 
were  less  grand  and  sustained  in  style — less  tender,  glowing, 
and  eloquent — than  those  we  possess, — that  they  contained 
less  recitation  of  God's  dealings,1  less  expostulation,  exhort- 
ation, and  affectionate  appeal, — or  were  less  impressive  in 
their  counsels  and  warnings  ?  Or  that  Moses,  when  he  came 
to  write  them  down — "till  they  were  finished,"  says  the 
text — was  not  able  to  make  as  noble  and  powerful  a  record 
of  them  as  any  inspired  man  of  a  later  date  ?  We,  at  least, 
have  a  less  mean  idea  of  Moses,  the  man  of  God,  and  of  his 
literary  capabilities.  We  have  a  full  and  vivid  picture  of 
him,  and  specimens  of  his  style  of  thought  and  pleading,  in 
the  history ;  we  can  judge  of  his  lofty  gifts,  if  the  Ode  at  the 
Red  Sea,  or  the  Song  in  Deuteronomy,2  are  from  his  pen  ; 
and  we  may  well  believe  that,  of  all  men  living,  he  was  the 
one  most  capable  of  giving  worthy  literary  form  to  his  own 
addresses.8  If  the  book,  in  substance,  is  from  Moses,  very 

1  If  so,  what  dealings  T  Those  in  the  JE  history  ?  It  is  to  be 
remembered  that,  wherever  we  place  Deuteronomy,  the  JE  history,  in 
eubstance  at  least,  stands  behind  it. 

•Nothing  necessitates  us,"  says  Pelitzseh,  "to  deny  the  Song  to 
Moses."—  Luthardt's  Zeitschrift,  1880,  p.  f»06  ;  cf.  Genesis,  i.  p.  45. 

'"In  presence,"  says  Dtlitzsoh,  "of  the  Egyptian  and  Babylonian- 
Assyrian  written  monuments,  which  likewise  contain  great  connected 


266       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

cogent  reasons  must  be  shown  for  putting  it,  even  in  its 
literary  form,  at  a  much  later  date. 

In  reality,  however,  so  far  as  critics  of  the  newer -time 
are  concerned,  such  a  hypothesis  as  we  have  been  consider- 
ing is  wholly  in  the  air.  Possessed  of  quite  other  ideas  of 
what  must  have  been,  these  writers  will  hardly  entertain 
even  the  possibility,  either  of  Moses  having  written  these 
discourses,  or  of  his  being  able  to  write  them.  For  them 
the  Mosaic  age  is  literally,  as  Duhm  says,  "wiped  out."1 
Underlying  their  refusal  of  Deuteronomy  to  Moses  will 
generally  be  found  the  denial  that  we  know  anything 
definitely  at  all  about  Moses,  or  of  his  literary  capabilities, 
or  that  he  delivered  any  testamentary  discourses,  or  that 
any  of  the  laws  or  institutions  ordinarily  attributed  to  him 
— even  the  Ten  Commandments — are  actually  of  his  age.2 
In  that  case,  Delitzsch's  hypothesis,  with  other  mediating 
views,  falls,  and  we  are  brought  back  essentially  to  the  old 
alternative.  The  thorough-paced  critic  will  have  nothing 
to  say  to  a  hypothetical  or  traditionary  basis  for  a  book 
admitted  to  belong  in  its  present  shape  to  the  age  of 
the  kings.3  Kuenen  will  allow  no  alternative  between 
"  authenticity  "  and  "  literary  fiction."4 

3.  When,  finally,  from  the  external  attestation,  we  turn 
to  the  internal  character  of  the  book — and  it  is  here  the 
strength  of  the  critical  position  is  held  to  lie — we  find  a 
series  of  phenomena  which,  so  far  from  supporting,  throw 
very  great,  if  not  insuperable,  obstacles  in  the  way  of  its 
ascription  to  the  age  of  Josiah.  On  these  the  minifying 
end  of  the  critical  telescope  is  persistently  turned,  while  the 

oratorical  pieces,  and  represent  a  form  of  speech  which  remained  essentially 
the  same  during  1000  years,  one  need  not  be  disturbed  by  the  high  antiquity 
of  a  written  production  of  Moses." — Luthardt's  Zeitschrift,  1880,  p.  506. 
See  his  testimony  to  Moses  as  a  poet  in  Genesis,  i.  pp.  44-45. 

1  Theol.  d.  Proph.  p.  19.     See  below,  p.  286. 

2  It  is  not  advanced  writers  alone  that  fall  into  this  arbitrary  style  of 
reasoning.     Such  a  reason,  e.g.,  as  that  assigned  even  by  a  believing  critic 
like   Riehm   for  refusing    the    Deuteronomic    discourses  to   Moses — "the 
spiritual  apprehension  of  the  law,  as  seen  in  the  demand  for  a  circumcision 
of  the  heart "  (Einleit.  i.  pp.  245-46) — belongs  to  the  same  a  priori,  "subjective 
system  of  judging  of  a  past  age,  which  scientific  investigation  is  increasingly 
discrediting. 

3  "The  opinion,"  said  De  Wette  long  ago,   "that  these  latter  passages 
(Deut.  xxxi.  9,  etc.)  refer  to  a  short  treatise  which  has  been  worked  over  in 
Deuteronomy  is  quite  arbitrary." — Introd.  ii.  p.  159. 

*  Hex.  p.  219. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       267 

magnifying  end  is  brought  to  bear  in  its  full  power  on  any 
difficulties  that  seem  to  tell  against  an  earlier  date.  We 
have  to  remember  that  the  book,  on  the  critical  view,  was 
composed  with  the  express  design  of  calling  into  being  such 
a  reformation  as  that  which  followed  its  "  discovery  "  in  the 
reign  of  Josiah.1  The  proof  of  its  origin  in  that  age  is  held 
to  be  its  suitability  to  the  conditions  of  the  time,  and  the 
stress  it  lays  on  the  demand  for  centralisation  of  worship. 
When,  however,  we  open  the  book  itself,  we  are  forcibly 
struck  by  the  absence  of  clear  evidence  of  any  such  design 
on  the  part  of  the  author,  and  by  the  numerous  indications 
of  MTisuitability  to  the  age  in  which  it  is  believed  to  have 
been  composed.  The  book  and  the  history,  in  a  word,  do 
not  fit  each  other. 

(1)  It  is  extremely  doubtful  if  "  centralisation  of  worship," 
in  the  critical  acceptation  of  that  phrase,  was  the  dominant 
motive  in  Josiah 's  reformation  at  all.  The  idea  of  the  un- 
lawfulness of  worship — even  of  Jehovah — on  high  places 
need  not  have  been  absent ;  it  had,  we  believe,  been  in  the 
background  of  men's  minds  ever  since  the  founding  of 
Solomon's  temple.  But  it  was  not  that  which  so  strangely 
moved  Josiah  to  alarm  and  action.  His  reformation  from 
beginning  to  end  was  a  crusade  against  the  idolatry  which 
had  everywhere  infected  Church  and  state — central  sanctuary 
included,2 — and  the  "  high  places  "  were  put  down  as  part  of 
this  stern  suppression  of  all  idolatrous  and  heathenish 
practices.  Of  a  movement  for  unity  of  worship  as  such  the 
narrative  gives  not  a  single  hint.  On  the  other  hand, 
when  we  look  to  Deuteronomy,  we  find  little  or  nothing 
that  points  directly  to  a  consuming  zeal  against  the  "  high 
places" — in  Josiah's  time  the  crying  sin,  because  the 
chief  centres  of  idolatry,  in  Judah.  There  are  warnings 
against  failing  into  the  idolatries  and  other  abominations  of 
the  CanaaniteSy  when  the  land  should  be  possessed,3  and  in 
chaps,  vii.  5,  25,  xii.  2-4,  injunctions  to  "  utterly  destroy  " 
the  sanctuaries,  altars,  pillars,  Asherahs,  and  graven  images 
of  these  former  inhabitants.  But  there  is  nothing  peculiarly 

1  "  It  was  not  by  accident,"  Kuenen  says,  "but  in  accordance  with  the 
writer's  deliberate  purpose,    that  it  became  the   foundation  and  norm  of 
Josinh's  reformation." — Hex.    p.    215.     Cf.    Wellhaus>eu,   Hist,   of  Israel, 
p.  33. 

2  Cf.  2  Kings  xxiii.  4,  7,  11,  12,  etc. 
8  Cf.  especially  chap,  xviii.  9  ff. 


268       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

Josianic  in  this — it  is  all  there  already  in  the  older  Book  of 
the  Covenant.1  Still  further,  while  Deuteronomy  gives 
prominence  to  the  idea  of  the  centralisation  of  worship  at 
the  sanctuary,  it  is  far  from  correct  to  say  that  this  is  the 
dominating  idea  of  the  book — the  one  grand  idea  which 
inspires  it.2  It  has  its  place  in  chap,  xii.,  and  recurs  in  the 
regulations  for  feasts,  tithing,  and  priestly  duty;  but  the 
preceding  discourses  have  nothing  to  say  of  it,  and  in  the 
Code  it  appears  with  a  multitude  of  other  laws,  some  of 
them  more  fundamental  than  itself.  The  bulk  of  the  laws 
in  the  book,  as  will  appear  below,  are  taken  from  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant ;  others  are  from  a  priestly  source  yet  to 
be  investigated. 

(2)  Here  already  is  a  puzzling  problem  for  the  critics — 
to  account  for  the  relevancy  of  this  wide  range  of  laws, 
many  of  them  dealing  with  seemingly  trivial  matters,  in  a 
book  assumed  to  be  specially  composed  to  effect  a  reforma- 
tion in  worship?  The  irrelevancy  of  the  greater  number  of 
the  precepts  for  such  a  purpose  is  obvious  at  a  glance.  But 
the  incongruity  of  the  Code  in  structure  and  contents  with 
the  supposed  occasion  of  its  origin  appears  in  other  respects. 
The  most  favourable  view  of  the  book  is  that  it  is  a  corpus 
of  old  laws  reproduced  in  a  hortatory  setting  with  special 
adaptation  to  the  circumstances  of  a  late  time.  Yet  in 

lEx.  xx.  3  ff.  ;  xxii.  18,  20;  xxiii.  13,  24,  32,  33;  cf.  xxxiv.  14-17. 
The  exception  is  the  sun,  moon,  and  "host  of  heaven"  in  Deut.  iv.  19, 
xvii.  3,  founded  on  by  Riehm  (i.  p.  245)  and  others.  But  the  worship  of 
sun,  moon,  and  other  heavenly  bodies  goes  far  back  beyond  Moses,  and  is 
alluded  to  in  the  Old  Testament  long  before  the  time  of  Josiah  (Isa.  xvii.  8, 
R.V. ;  Amos  v.  26).  Cf.  Beth-shemesh  in  Josh.  xv.  10,  etc. 

2  Oettli  says  :  "  It  rests  on  an  unusual  onesidedness  in  the  mode  of 
consideration,  if,  as  now  mostly  happens,  the  aim  of  Deuteronomy  is 
restricted  to  the  centralisation  of  the  cultus,  and  the  ordinances  of  worship 
connected-  with  this.  That  is  one  of  its  demands,  but  it  is  neither  the  most 
original  nor  the  weightiest,  but  only  an  outcome  of  its  deepening  of  the 
thought  of  the  covenant." — Deut.  Introd.  p.  21. 

8  This  is  in  fact  made  the  starting-point  by  the  newer  critics  for  their 
hypothesis  of  "gradual  accretion."  "There  is  no  apparent  appropriate- 
ness," we  read,  "  so  far  as  the  programme  of  the  Deuteronomic  reforms  is 
concerned,  in  the  historical  retrospect,-  i.  6-iii.  But  neither  is  there,  for 
example,  in  the  laws  which  regulate  birds' •nesting  or  parapets  upon  a  roof 
in  xxii.  6-8.  With  what  feelings  [one  tnay  well  ask  it]  could  Josiah  have 
listened  to  these  details?  ...  It  is  plain  that  the  contents  of  the  Code,  at 
least  in  its  later  portions,  are  very  miscellaneous." — Carpenter,  Hex.  i. 
p.  93.  But  then,  instead  of  recasting  the  theory  of  "  programmes  "  which 
thus  has  the  bottom  taken  out  of  it,  the  law-book  of  Josiah  is  reduced 
practically  to  chaps,  xii.-xix.  (p.  95). 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       269 

point  of  form  everything  is  thrown  back  into  the  age  of 
Moses.  The  standpoint  of  the  speaker  is  the  East  of  Jordan,1 
with  the  prospect  of  the  people's  immediately  entering 
Canaan;  Israel  is  treated  in  its  unbroken  unity  as  a  nation 
("all  Israel "),  and  there  is  not  a  hint  anywhere  of  the  great 
division  that,  centuries  before  Josiah's  time,  had  rent  the 
kingdom  into  twain,  and  had  ended  in  the  destruction  of 
one  of  its  branches  (Ephraim).  What  is  even  more  remark- 
able, the  laws  frequently  are,  not  only  long  obsolete,  but  of 
a  character  ludicrously  out  of  place  in  a  reforming  Code  of 
the  end  of  the  seventh  century.  We  need  not  dwell  at 
length  on  these  anachronisms  of  the  Code,  which  have  been 
so  often  pointed  out,2 — the  law,  e.g.,  for  the  extermination 
of  the  Canaanites,3  when  no  Canaanites  remained  to  be 
exterminated;  the  injunction  to  destroy  the  Amalekites;* 
the  rules  for  military  service  (inapplicable  to  the  later 
time),5  for  besieging  of  foreign  cities,6  for  arrangements  in 
the  camp ; 7  the  warnings  against  choosing  a  foreigner  for  a 
king,  and  causing  to  return  to  Egypt,8  the  friendly  tone 
towards  Edom,9  so  strangely  in  contrast  with  the  hostile 
spirit  of  the  prophets ; 10  and  the  like.  These  things  may 
seem  as  the  small  dust  of  the  balance  to  the  critic,11  but 
they  may  not  appear  so  insignificant  to  others.  Dr. 
Diiver's  answer,  that  the  injunctions  against  the  Canaanites 
and  Amalekites  are  repeated  from  the  older  legislation,  and 
"in  a  recapitulation  of  Mosaic  principles  addressed  ex 
hypothesi  to  the  people  when  they  were  about  to  enter 
Canaan,  would  be  naturally  included,"12  only  corroborates 

1  On  the  expression  "  the  other  side  Jordan,"  see  below,  p.  281. 

I  Cf.  Delitzsch,  Genesis,  p.  38  ;  Oettli,  Deut.  Introd.  pp.  11,  12,  17  ff. 
•  Chaps,  vii.  1,  2,  xx.  10-18. 

4  Chap.  xxv.  17-19.  Dr.  Green  speaks  of  these  injunctions  as  being  as 
utterly  out  of  date  as  would  be  at  the  present  day  "  a  royal  proclamation  in 
Great  Britain  ordering  the  expulsion  of  the  Danes." — Moses  and  the  Prophets, 
p.  63. 

6  Chap.  xx.  1-9.  •  Chap.  xx.  9-15,  19,  20. 

7  Chap,  xxiii.  2-9.     Imagine  these  provisions  in  a  Code  seven  centuries 
after  Moses. 

8  Chap.  xvii.  15-16.     See  Note  E  on  the  Law  of  the  King. 

9  Chap,  xxiii.  7,  8. 

10  Jer.  xlix.  17,  18  ;  Ohadiah  ;  Joel  Hi.  19  ;  Isa.  Ixiii.  1-6. 

II  Cf.  Kuenen,  Hex.  pp.  218-19.     Kuenen  has  no  difficulty,  because  he 
frankly  attributes  to  the  author  the  design  to  deceive. 

l-  Deut.  p.  Ixii.  Dr.  Driver's  suggestion  that  the  injunctions  against  the 
Canaanites  would  have  an  indirect  value  aa  a  protest  against  heathenish 
practices  in  Judah  is  without  support  in  the  text,  which  evidently 


2;o      DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

our  point,  that  they  were  suitable  to  the  times  of  Moses, 
but  not  to  those  of  Josiah.  The  difficulty  is  not  touched 
why  a  writer  in  that  age  should  go  out  of  his  way  to  include 
them,  when  they  did  not  bear  on  his  purpose,  and  had  no 
relevancy  to  existing  conditions.  But  even  in  the  matter 
of  reformation  of  worship,  it  is  important  to  observe  that 
the  laws  in  Deuteronomy  were  not  of  a  kind  that  could  be, 
or  were,  enforced  by  Josiah  in  their  integrity.  In  the  Code, 
e.g.,  it  is  ordained  that  idolaters  of  every  degree,  with  all  who 
secretly  or  openly  entice  to  idolatry,  are  to  be  unsparingly 
put  to  death.1  Josiah,  it  is  true,  slew  the  priests  of  the 
high  places  of  Samaria  upon  their  altars.  But  he  did  not 
attempt  any  such  drastic  measures  in  Judah.  He  brought 
up,  instead,  the  priests  of  the  high  places  to  Jerusalem,  and 
allowed  them  to  "  eat  of  the  unleavened  bread  among  their 
brethren."2  It  is  one  of  the  most  singular  instances  of 
the  reading  of  a  preconceived  theory  into  a  plain  text,  when, 
in  face  of  the  law  ordaining  death  for  all  idolatry,  these 
"  disestablished  priests  "  of  the  high  places  are  regarded  as 
the  Levites  of  Deut.  xviii.  8,  for  whom  provision  is  made 
out  of  the  temple  dues.3  Of  course,  there  is  not  a  syllable 
hinting  at  "  disestablished  priests  "  of  the  high  places  in  the 
provisions  of  Deuteronomy  for  the  Levites.  The  latter, 
besides,  were  permitted  to  minister  at  the  sanctuary,  while 
Josiah's  priests  were  not. 

IV.  CRITICAL  KEASONS  FOB  LATE  DATING  OF  THE  BOOK: 
VALIDITY  OF  THESE 

It  is  now  incumbent  on  us,  having  indicated  the 
difficulties  which  seem  to  us  decisive  against  a  late  dating 
of  Deuteronomy,  to  consider  the  reasons  ordinarily  adduced 
in  favour  of  that  late  dating,  or  at  least  of  the  origin  of  the 
book  in  times  long  posterior  to  Moses.  We  have  already 
seen  that,  of  those  who  reject  the  substantially  Mosaic 

means  them  to  be  taken  quite  seriously,  and  does  not  apply  to  the 
Amalekites,  etc. 

1  Deut.  xiii.  a  2  Kings  xxiii.  9. 

*  Thus  Dr.  Driver  connects — as  if  it  were  a  matter  of  course — Deut. 
xviii.  8  with  "  Josiah's  provision  made  for  the  support  of  the  disestablished 

E-iests  out  of  the  temple  dues." — Deut.  p.  xlv.     Cf.  Wellhausen  :  "  He  (the 
euteionomist)   provides   for  the  priests  of  the  suppressed  sanctuaries," 
etc.— Hist,  ofltrael,  p.  33. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       271 

origin  of  the  book,  a  few  place  the  book  earlier  than 
Hezekiah,  some  put  it  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  most  put  it 
in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  It  may  be  found  that  several,  at 
least,  of  the  reasons  for  this  late  dating  turn,  on  examina- 
tion, into  arguments  for  the  opposite  view. 

It  cannot  be  too  constantly  borne  in  mind,  what  was 
before  said,  that,  with  the  majority  of  critics  of  the  Graf- 
Wellhausen  school,  the  really  determining  grounds  for  the 
late  dating  of  Deuteronomy  lie  outside  the  region  of 
properly  critical  discussion  altogether,  viz.,  in  the  com- 
pletely altered  view  taken  of  the  age  of  Moses,  and  of  the 
subsequent  course  of  the  religious  history  of  Israel.  If  the 
accounts  we  have  of  Moses  and  his  work  are,  as  Kuenen 
says,  "  utterly  unhistorical," — if  it  is  inconceivable  that  he 
should  have  had  the  elevated  conceptions  or  the  prophetic 
foresight  attributed  to  him  in  these  discourses, — then  it 
needs  no  further  argument  to  prove  that  Deuteronomy  must 
be  late.  The  date  of  Deuteronomy  is,  in  this  case,  no  longer 
merely  a  literary  question,  and  the  critics  are  not  wrong  in 
speaking  of  it,  as  they  have  sometimes  done,  as  the  pivot  of 
the  Pentateuchal  question.  It  does  not,  indeed,  follow,  as 
we  formerly  sought  to  show,  that  the  Mosaic  history  and 
religion  are  subverted,  even  if  a  late  date  is  accepted  for  the 
present  form  of  the  book.  But  very  important  conclusions 
certainly  do  follow,  if  the  book  is  admitted  to  be  early.  If 
Deuteronomy,  in  its  present  form,  be  even  substantially 
Mosaic, — if  it  conveys  to  us  with  fidelity  the  purport  of 
discourses  and  laws  actually  delivered  by  Moses  to  the 
people  of  Israel  before  his  death, — then  we  must  go  a  great 
deal  further.  For  Deuteronomy  undeniably  rests  in  some 
degree  on  the  JE  history  embodied  in  our  Pentateuch ;  on 
the  Code  of  laws  which  we  call  the  Book  of  the  Covenant, 
incorporated  in  that  history;  as  well  as  on  priestly  laws 
from  some  other  source.  The  effect  of  the  acceptance  of  an 
early  date  for  Deuteronomy,  therefore,  is  to  throw  all  these 
writings  back  practically  into  the  Mosaic  age,  whatever  the 
time  when  they  were  finally  put  together.  We  should  like, 
to  be  more  sure  than  we  are  that  it  is  not  the  perception  of 
this  fact  which  is  at  least  one  motive  in  leading  the  critics 
to  put  down  Deuteronomy  as  far  as  they  do,  in  the  age  of 
the  kings. 

1.  It  is  important,  in   this  connection,  to  observe  how 


272       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

much  is  conceded  by  the  more  moderate  advocates  of  the 
critical  hypothesis  themselves.  These  concessions  are  very 
considerable — so  extensive,  in  fact,  that  they  really  amount, 
in  our  view,  to  the  giving  up  of  a  large  part  of  the  critical 
case  for  the  late  dating.  We  have  seen  how  Delitzsch 
postulates  written  "testamentary  discourses"  and  laws  of 
Moses ;  but  critics  like  Oettli  and  Driver  also  go  a  long  way 
in  allowing,  in  the  words  of  the  latter,1 "  a  continuous  Mosaic 
tradition,"  reaching  back  to  Moses'  own  time,  and  "  embrac- 
ing a  moral,  a  ceremonial,  arid  a  civil  element."  When, 
particularly,  the  object  is  to  vindicate  Deuteronomy  against 
the  charge  of  "  forgery  "  and  "  invention,"  stress  is  strongly 
-laid  on  the  fact  that  the  great  bulk  of  the  legislation  is  old, 
and  that  the  few  laws  which  are  really  new  are  but  "  the 
logical  and  consistent  development  of  Mosaic  principles."2 
So  far,  indeed,  is  this  insistence  on  the  antiquity  and 
genuinely  Mosaic  character  of  the  legislation  carried — in 
•striking  and  favourable  contrast  with  the  more  radical 
tendency  to  deny  all  legislation  to  Moses — that  one  begins 
to  wonder  where  the  contradictions  with  earlier  law  and 
practice  come  in  which  are  to  prove  indubitably  that  the 
book  cannot  be  Mosaic.  Thus  we  are  bid  remember  "  that 
what  is  essentially  new  in  Deuteronomy  is  not  the  matter, 
but  the  form."3  Dillmann  is  quoted  as  testifying  that 
"  Deuteronomy  is  anything  but  an  original  law-book." 4 
"  The  new  element  in  Deuteronomy,"  it  is  said,  "  is  not  the 
laws,  but  their  parenetic  setting.  .  .  .  [The  author's]  aim 
was  to  win  obedience  to  laws,  or  truths,  which  were  already 
known,  but  were  in  danger  of  being  forgotten."6  "It  was 
felt  to  be  (in  the  main)  merely  the  re-affirmation  of  laws 
and  usages  which  had  been  long  familiar  to  the  nation, 
though  in  particular  cases  they  might  have  fallen  into 
neglect."6  Most  significant  of  all  is  a  sentence  quoted  from 
Eeuss :  "  The  only  real  innovation  .  .  .  was  the  absolute 
prohibition  of  worship  outside  of  Jerusalem."7 

Here  at  length  we  seem  to  come  to  a  definite  issue. 
The  "  only  real  innovation "  in  Deuteronomy  is  the  law  of 
the  central  sanctuary.  We  are  not  unjustified,  therefore,  in 

1  Deut.  p.  Ivii.  Cf.  Oettli,  Devi.  Introd.  pp.  17,  18.  Delitzsch  may  be 
quoted  again  :  "The  claim  of  Deuteronomy  to  a  Mosaic  origin  is  justified  on 
internal  grounds." — Luthardt's  Zeitschrift,  1880,  p.  503  ;  cf.  p.  504. 

3  Ibid.  p.  IvL  8  Ibid.  *  Ibid. 

8  Ibid.  p.  to.  •  Ibid.  p.  Ivi.  »  Ibid. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       273 

regarding  this  as  the  fundamental  pillar  which  upholds  the 
case  for  the  late  dating  of  Deuteronomy.  Even  this 
law,  moreover,  it  is  conceded,  is  only  "  relatively  "  new ;  it 
was  a  genuine  development  from  Mosaic  principles,  and 
focalising  of  tendencies  which  had  long  been  in  operation.1 
The  natural  inference  one  would  draw  from  this  is,  that  it 
cannot  be  really  incompatible  with  the  law  in  Ex.  xx.  24, 
with  its  supposed  permission  of  unlimited  freedom  of 
worship.2  The  subject  was  discussed  in  an  earlier  chapter, 
to  which  it  is  sufficient  here  to  refer.3  The  conclusion  there 
arrived  at  was  that  there  is  nothing  in  this  Deuteronomic 
law  essentially  at  variance  with  the  altar-law  in  Exodus,  or 
with  the  later  religious  practice,  if  allowance  is  made  for 
times  of  religious  backsliding  and  neglect,  and  for  the 
complete  disorganisation  of  an  age  like  Samuel's,  when 
ecclesiastical  and  every  other  kind  of  laws  were  necessarily 
in  large  part  in  abeyance.  One  fact  which  should  lead 
criticism  to  pause  before  giving  too  narrow  an  interpretation 
of  the  law  is  that,  as  before  noted,  in  Deuteronomy  itself  a 
command  is  given  for  the  building  of  an  altar  for  sacrifice 
on  Mount  Ebal,  in  harmony  with  the  law  in  Exodus.*  We 
marked  also  a  tendency  in  the  newer  criticism  itself  to  break 
with  the  "VVellhausen  "  dogma  "  of  an  absolute  centralisation 
of  worship  in  Deuteronomy,  and  a  consequent  conflict  with 
the  older  law  in  Exodus.6 

2.  If  this  fundamental  prop  of  the  Wellhausen  theory 
gives  way,  as  we  are  persuaded  it  does,  most  of  the  other  con- 
siderations adduced  in  favour  of  the  late  date  of  Deuteronomy 
may  fairly  be  treated  as  of  subordinate  importance.  They 
resolve  themselves,  partly  into  alleged  discrepancies  between 
the  Deuteronomic  laws  and  those  of  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  and  of  the  Levitical  Code;  partly  into  alleged 

1  Dcut.  p.  Ivi.  *  See  ahove,  pp.  173  ff. 

»  Chap.  VI.  pp.  173  ff.  4  Di-nt.  xxvii.  5-7. 

•  Seeal>ove,  Oiap.  VI.  pp.  174,  176.  Fries,  in  his  Modern*  Vorstellungen 
der  Geschichle  Israels,  speaks  of  this  "  dogma  "  as  playing  well-nigh  the  same 
part  in  the  Wellhansen  criticism  as  did  formerly  "the  opposition  between 
Jewish  and  Pauline  Christianity  in  the  school  of  Baur  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment domain"  (p.  15)  ;  and  Van  Hoonacker,  in  his  Le  Sacerdoce  Ltmtique, 
says :  "The  whole  historical  and  critical  system  of  tin-  school  of  Wellluuisea 
rests  in  effect  on  the  pretended  first  promulgation  of  the  principle  of  the 
unity  of  the  sanctuary  in  the  seventh  century  "  (|>.  14).  This  writer  points 
out  that  the  unity  of  the  sanctuary  is  not  so  much  enacted  as  presupposed 
in  Deuteronomy  (p.  13). 

1 8 


274       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

discrepancies  with  the  history  of  the  preceding  books ;  and 
partly  into  a  few  expressions  in  the  book  thought  to  imply  a 
later  date  than  that  of  Moses.  On  none  of  these  classes  of 
objection  will  it  be  found  necessary  to  spend  much  time: 
a  few  typical  examples  may  be  examined. 

(1)  The  subject  of  laws  may  be  glanced  at  first.  In  a 
previous  chapter  we  endeavoured  to  show  that  there  is 
nothing  in  Deuteronomy  necessarily  incompatible  with  the 
Aaronic  priesthood  and  Levitical  arrangements  of  the 
middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch l — arrangements  now  held, 
however,  by  the  critical  school  to  be  later  than  Deutero- 
nomy ;  and  we  shall  see  as  we  proceed  that,  while  it  was 
no  part  of  the  design  of  the  speaker  in  these  farewell 
addresses  to  dwell  on  details  of  ritual,  chiefly  of  interest  to 
the  priests,  yet  Levitical  regulations  are  presupposed,  and 
in  some  instances  are  referred  to,  in  his  recital.2  As  to  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  it  is  allowed  on  all  hands  that  the 
bulk  of  its  provisions  are  taken  up,  and  reiterated  and 
enforced  in  the  discourses.3  In  such  hortatory  recapitulation, 
where  much  is  left  to  be  understood  by  the  hearer,  points  of 
difficulty  in  comparison  with  other  Codes  may  be  expected 
to  arise ;  but,  considering  the  number  of  the  laws,  the 
seeming  discrepancies  must  be  pronounced  very  few.  In 
some  cases  it  may  be  that  we  do  not  possess  all  the 
elements  for  a  complete  solution,  but  there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that,  if  we  had  them,  a  solution  would  not  be 
forthcoming. 

A  chief  example  of  discrepancy  between  Deuteronomy 
and  the  Priestly  Code — the  chief,  perhaps,  after  that  of  the 
priests  and  Levites4 — is  in  the  tithe-laws  in  chaps,  xii.  6, 
17-19,  xiv.  22-29,  xxvi.  12-15,  which  certainly  present  a 
different  aspect  from  those  in  Num.  xviii.  21-31.5  In 
the  latter  case  the  tithe  is  devoted  in  fixed  proportions  to 
the  maintenance  of  Levites  and  priests;  in  the  former,  it 
is  used  by  the  worshippers  for  two  years  out  of  three  in 

1  Cf.  Chap.  VI.  pp.  180  ff. 

8  See  below,  pp.  311  ff.  On  the  relation  of  Deuteronomy  to  the  so-called 
"Law  of  Holiness,"  see  next  chapter. 

8  Lists  of  comparison  of  the  laws  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  in 
Deuteronomy  may  be  seen  in  Driver  (Deut.  pp.  iv  if.),  Westphal,  Oettli,  or 
any  of  the  text-books. 

4  See  above,  pp.  1 84  ff. 

8  Cf.  on  the  discrepancy,  Kuenen,  Hex.  pp.  28,  29  ;  Driver,  Deut.  pp. 
168  ff. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       275 

feasts  at  the  sanctuary,  to  which  the  Levites  are  invited,  and 
on  the  third  year  is  given  up  wholly,  at  home,  to  the 
Levites,  orphans,  widows,  and  strangers.  Apart,  however, 
from  the  fact  that  the  Levitical  provision  seems  clearly 
(indeed,  verbally)  referred  to  in  chap,  xviii.  1,  2,1  it  appears, 
if  better  solution  does  not  offer,2  a  not  unreasonable  ex- 
planation that,  in  accordance  with  later  Jewish  practice,  the 
festal  tithe  of  Deuteronomy  is  different  from,  and  additional 
to,  the  ordinary  tithe  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Levites  (a 
"  second  tithe  ").s  We  may  perhaps  venture  the  suggestion 
that  it  is  really  this  Deuteronomic  tithe  which  was  the  old 
and  traditional  one,  and  the  Levitical  tithe  which  was  the 
second  and  additional  impost.  The  tithe  devoted  to 
Jehovah  probably  goes  back  in  pious  circles  to  remotest 
times  (cf.  Gen.  xiv.  20 ;  xxviii.  22),  and  then  can  only  be 
supposed  to  have  been  used  in  a  religious  feast,  or  in  charity. 
This  was  the  old  and  well-understood  voluntary  tithe ;  the 
Levitical  had  a  different  object.  But  if  the  Deuteronomic 
tithe  creates  difficulty,  what  is  to  be  said  of  the  counter- 
theory  of  the  critics  ?  Is  it  really  to  be  credited — for  this 
is  the  alternative  supposition — that  a  tithe-law  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  Levites,  unknown  in  the  days  of  Josiah, 
first  came  in  with  Ezra,  yet,  though  previously  unheard 
of,  was  unmurmuringly  submitted  to  by  everybody  as  a  law 
given  in  the  wilderness  by  Moses  ? 4 

Minor  examples  of  discrepancies,  as  those  which  relate 
to  firstlings  (chap.  xv.  19,  20 ;  cf.  Num.  xviii.  17,  18),  to 
priestly  dues  (chap,  xviii  3,  4),  to  the  treatment  of  bond- 

1  See  above,  p.  187. 

*  Van  Hoonaeker  has  here  an  ingenious,  but,  as  it  seems  to  us,  untenable 
theory,  based  on  the  expression  in  Deut.   xxvt  12,  "the  third  year,  which 
is  the  year  of  tithing,"  compared  with   Amos  iv.  4,  that  the  Levitical  tithe 
of  Num.  xviii.  was  not  an  annual,  but  a  triennial  one,  and  that  the  yearly 
festal   tithe  of  Deuteronomy  was  a  secondary  and    less  strict  taxing  of 
produce,  which  only   improperly  got  the  name  tithe  (Le  Sacerdoce,  pp. 
384  ff.). 

*  Thus  in  Tob.  i.  7  ;  Jowphus,  Aniia.  ir.  8.  22  ;  LXX  in  Deut,  xxvi.  12. 
The  explanation  does  not  remove  all  difficulties,  especially  the  absence  of 
allusion  to  the  primary  tithe.     It  is  to  be  noticed,  however,  that  the  speaker 
is  here  evidently  alluding  to  a  custom  already  established,  not  (as  Dr. 
Driver  has  it),  instituting  a  second  tithe  for  the  first  time. 

4  See  below,  pp.  296,  319.  Seeing  that  in  Deuteronomy  also  the  tribe  of 
I>vi  is  set  aside  for  sacred  service,  and  has  therefore  no  inheritance  with  the 
other  tribes,  is  it  conceivable  that  no  provision  should  be  made  for  the  tribe 
but  these  rare  feasts  at  the  sanctuary,  or  every  third  year  t  Does  chap,  xviii 
1,  2  not  suggest  a  different  view  ? 


276      DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

servants  (chap.  xv.  12 ;  cf.  Ex.  xxi.  1-6),  to  the  law  of  carrion 
(chap.  xiv.  21 ;  cf.  Lev.  xvii.  15),  seem  capable  of  reasonable 
explanation.1  A  few  modifications  on  older  laws  are  made 
in  view  of  the  altered  circumstances  of  settlement  in  Canaan, 
notably  the  permission  to  kill  and  eat  flesh  at  home  (Deut. 
xiL  15),  in  room  of  the  wilderness  requirement  that  all 
slaying  for  food  should  be  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  (cf. 
Lev.  xvii.  3  ff.). 

'  (2)  There  are  alleged,  next,  certain  historical  discrepancies, 
some  of  them,  we  cannot  but  think,  instructive  examples 
of  that  Widerspruchsjdgerei — "hunting  for  contradictions" — 
which  Delitzsch  not  unjustly  ascribes  to  the  school  of  Well- 
hausen.2  The  opponents  of  the  unity  of  Deuteronomy  find 
numerous  inconsistencies  in  the  different  parts  of  the  book 
itself  (e.g.>  between  chaps,  v.-xi.  and  xil-xxvL,  or  between 
chaps,  i.-iv.  and  v.-xxvi.) ;  but  these  the  critical  defenders  of 
the  unity  find  means  of  satisfactorily  explaining.3  A  slight 
extension  of  the  same  skill,  we  are  persuaded,  would 
enable  them  to  dispose  as  satisfactorily  of  most  of  the 
others.  On  the  general  relation  to  the  preceding  history, 
it  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that  the  retrospects  in  Deuteronomy 
presuppose  the  narratives  of  JE,  and  reproduce  them  with 
substantial  fidelity.4  The  Wellhausen  school,  in  accordance 
with  its  principles,  denies  any  similar  dependence  on  the  P 
sections  of  the  history ; 5  but  this  it  is  difficult  to  maintain 
in  view  of  the  considerable  number  of  references  to  par- 
ticulars, and  turns  of  expression,  found  only  in  P.  Only  in 
P.,  e.g.,  is  there  mention  of  Moses  and  Aaron  being  debarred 
from  Canaan  as  a  punishment ; 8  of  "  seventy  "  as  the  number 
who  went  down  to  Egypt ; 7  of  "  twelve  "  as  the  number  of  the 

1  See  Note  E  on  Minor  Discrepancies  in  Laws. 

1  Luthardt's  Zeitschrift,  1880,  p.  623. 

8  Cf.  Kuenen  (against  Wellhausen),  Hex.  pp.  113  ff.  ;  Driver,  Deut.  pp. 
Ixviii  ff.  etc. 

4  Driver  represents  the  general  view  in  saying  that  Deuteronomy  "is 
demonstrably  dependent  upon  JE"  (p.  xix  ;  cf.  p.  xv).  Some-  assume  a 
closer  dej>endence  on  E  than  on  J,  but  this  depends  on  what  is  attributed  to 
E,  and  what  to  J.  Westphal,  e.g.,  as  before  noticed,  gives  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  to  J  ;  Dillmann  and  Kuenen  give  it  to  E.  Dillinann,  on  the  other 
hand,  gives  the  story  of  the  golden  calf  (Ex.  xxxii.)  to  J ;  Westphal  and 
others  give  it  to  E. 

6  Ibid.  p.  xvi. 

8  Num.  xx.  12  ;  xxvii.  13  ff.  ;  Deut.  xxxii.  50  ff.  Cf.  Deut.  i.  37  ;  iii. 
26  ;  iv.  21. 

7  Gen.  xlvi.  27  ;  Ex.  i.  5.    Cf.  Dent.  x.  22. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       277 

spies;1  of  the  making  of  the  ark  of  acacia  wood.2  The 
words,  "  Since  the  day  that  God  created  man  upon  the 
earth,"  in  chup.  iv.  32,  seem  a  verbal  reference  to  Gen.  i.  26, 
27 ;  and  there  are  numerous  phraseological  assonances  with 
P  in  this  fourth  chapter, — "  belonging  usually  to  P,"  says 
Carpenter, — "  suggesting  occasional  contact  with  the  school 
that  produced  P,"3 — and  later,  as  "horses  and  chariots," 
"  hard  bondage,"  "  stretched-out  arm,"  etc.  (only  in  P).4  In 
no  case,  however,  is  there  slavish  dependence  on  the  letter 
of  the  history.6  The  speaker  deals  with  his  materials  with 
the  freedom  and  intimate  knowledge  of  one  who  had  been  a 
chief  actor  in  the  events  he  recounts ;  amplifies,  abbreviates 
supplies  fresh  details ;  groups  according  to  subject  rather 
than  time ;  passes  by  swift  association  to  related  topics.  It 
is  this  which  in  a  few  instances  gives  rise  to  the  appearance 
of  what  the  critics  are  pleased  to  call  "contradictions." 
Instead  of  telling  against  the  genuineness  of  the  book,  they 
constitute,  to  our  mind,  one  of  the  most  convincing  internal 
evidences  of  its  genuineness.  For  what  later  composer, 
with  the  JE  history  before  him,  would  have  allowed  himself 
these  freedoms,  or  have  wilfully  laid  himself  open  to  the 
charge  of  "  contradiction  "  of  his  sources  ? 6 

But  what,  taken  at  their  utmost,  do  these  "contra- 
dictions "  amount  to  ?  We  shall  glance  at  a  few  of  the  chief 
cases.  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  question  here  is 
not,  whether  Moses  wrote  personally  the  JE  or  P  sections 
of  the  Pentateuch,  but  whether  there  is  such  contradiction 
with  these  as  to  forbid  us  ascribing  the  discourses  in 
Deuteronomy  to  Moses  as  their  speaker.  We  do  not 
disprove,  e.g.,  the  Mosaic  character  of  the  discourses  by 

i  Num.  xiii.  2-10.    Cf.  Deut  i.  23.     See  below,  p.  279. 

*  Kx.  xxxvii.  1.    Cf.  Deut.  x.  3.     The  critical  view  is  that  JE  also  had  a 
story  of  the  making  of  the  ark. 

*  Hex.  ii.  p.  254. 

4  Deut  xi.  4  ;  xxvi.  6  (cf.  Ex.  i.  14) ;  iv.  34,  etc.  Cf.  Driver,  Dcvt.  pp. 
xvii,  Ixxi. 

9  Graf  concludes  from  the  freedom  of  reproduction  that  the  author  draws 
from  oral  tradition  and  not  from  written  sources.  Geschicht.  BUcher, 
p.  13. 

6  Unless,  indeed,  the  reader  is  prepared  to  accept  for  the  Deuteronomist 
the  patronising  apology  of  Colou.so  :  "  He  treats  them  [the  statement-  of 
the  older  narrative]  often  with  great  freedom,  and  sometimes  in  a  way  which 
shows  that,  though  generally  familiar  with  that  document,  he  was  not  so 
thoroughly  at  home  with  it  as  a  devout  English  reader  of  the  Pentateuch 
would  be.  —  Pent.  Pt.  vi.  p.  27. 


278       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

showing,  e.g.,  that  the  P  sections  are  not  directly,  or  at  all, 
from  Moses'  pen. 

A  first  instance  of  discrepancy  is,  that  in  Deuteronomy 
(i.  9  ff.)  Moses  reminds  the  people  how,  with  their  consent, 
he  appointed  judges  over  them;  in  Ex.  xviii.  we  are  told 
that  this  plan  was  originally  suggested  to  Moses  by  Jethro. 
We  submit  that  there  is  not  here  the  shadow  of  a  real 
difficulty  ?  Can  it  be  supposed  that  the  composer  of  the 
book,  whoever  he  was,  imagined  that  there  was  any  conflict  ? 
Yet  this  is  one  of  two  "  discrepancies  "  which  Dr.  Driver 
allows  "  are  not  absolutely  incompatible " x  with  Moses' 
authorship.  The  other  is,  that  in  Deuteronomy  (i.  22,  23) 
the  people  ask  that  spies  be  sent  to  search  the  land,  while 
in  Num.  xiii.  1  (P),  Jehovah  gives  the  order  for  the  mission. 
"  Not  absolutely  incompatible  "  ! 

As  an  example  of  a  discrepancy  held  to  be  irreconcilable 
with  Mosaic  authorship,  we  take  the  passages  relating  to 
Jehovah's  anger  against  Moses,  and  the  prohibition  to 
enter  Canaan.  "  In  Num.  xx.  12  (cf.  xxvii.  13  ff. ;  Deut.  xxxii. 
50  ff.),"  we  are  told, "  Moses  is  prohibited  to  enter  Canaan  on 
account  of  his  presumption  in  striking  the  rock  at  Kadesh, 
in  the  thirty-ninth  year  of  the  Exodus ;  here  (Deut.  i. 
37,  38  ;  iii.  26 ;  iv.  21),  the  ground  of  the  prohibition  is 
Jehovah's  anger  with  him  on  account  of  the  people,  upon  an 
occasion  which  is  plainly  fixed  by  the  context  for  the 
second  year  of  the  Exodus,  thirty-seven  years  previously."2 
We  invite  the  reader  to  compare  carefully  the  passages,  and 
judge  for  himself  whether  there  is  any  real  basis  for  this 
assertion.  In  three  places  in  his  address,  Moses  refers  to 
his  exclusion  from  Canaan,  and  in  one  of  them  tells  of  his 
pleading  with  Jehovah  (fixed  in  the  fortieth  year,  chap.  iii. 
23)  to  have  the  sentence  reversed.  The  narrative  of  this 
exclusion  is  given  at  length  in  Numbers,  with  the  rebellion 
of  the  people  that  led  to  it,  and  the  permission  to  view  the 
land  alluded  to  in  Deut.  iii.  27  (cf.  Num.  xxvii.  12,  13). 
It  is  surely  only  the  hyper-acute  sense  of  a  critic  that  can 
see  in  the  words  "for  your  sakes,"  which  evidently  refer 
to  the  provocation  of  the  people  that  occasioned  the 
offence  of  Moses  (Num.  xx.  2  ff.),  a  "contradiction"  of 
the  statement  that  he,  with  Aaron,  personally  sinned  at 
Meribah  (Num.  xx.  10);  while  the  assertion  that  the 

1  Deut.  p.  xxxvii.  3  Ibid.  p.  xxxv. 


THE  QIT.STION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       279 

incident  IB  "  plainly  fixed  "  in  Dent.  i.  37  in  the  second  year 
of  the  Exodus  is  a  "  plain  "  misreading  of  the  text.  Moses 
is  speaking  in  the  context  of  the  exclusion  of  that  older 
generation  from  Canaan,  and  by  a  natural  association  he 
alludes  in  passing  to  how  the  rebellious  spirit  of  the  living 
generation  had  brought  a  similar  sentence  of  exclusion  on 
himself.  The  discourses  are  full  of  such  rapid  transitions, 
determined  not  by  chronology,  but  by  the  connection  of  the 
thought  Cf.,  e.g.,  chap.  i.  9,  where  the  discourse  turns  back 
to  events  a  year  before  the  command  in  ver.  6 ;  chap.  ii.  1,  2, 
where  there  is  a  leap  over  thirty-seven  or  thirty-eight  years ; 
chaps.  ix.,x.,  where  x.  1  resumes,  with  the  words  "at  that  time," 
the  transactions  at  Horeb,  left  far  behind  in  chap.  ix.  22  ff. 

The  mission  of  the  spies,  alluded  to  above,  is  itself  a 
fruitful  source  of  "  contradictions,"  occasioned,  however, 
mainly  by  the  merciless  way  in  which  the  narrative  in 
Numbers  is  torn  up.1  The  incident  will  be  examined  in 
detail  in  a  future  chapter;2  only  the  main  point,  therefore, 
need  be  anticipated  here.  Deuteronomy,  it  is  said,  follow- 
ing JE,  knows  nothing  of  Joshua  as  one  of  the  spies,  and 
represents  the  search  party,  in  contrast  with  P,  as  pro- 
ceeding only  as  far  as  Eshcol  (chap.  i.  24, 25).  Yet  Deutero- 
nomy knows  of  the  choosing  of  "  twelve "  spies,  "  one 
of  a  tribe,"  as  in  Num.  xiii.  2  (P),  where  Joshua  is  included 
in  the  list  (ver.  8) ;  and  the  statement  in  Deut.  i.  38  that 
Joshua  (as  well  as  Caleb,  ver.  36)  would  enter  the  land, 
connects  most  naturally  with  the  promise  given  in  Num. 
xiv.  30.*  If  the  letter  in  JE  is  pressed  to  mean  that 
Caleb  only  was  to  enter  the  land,  it  would  seem  to 
exclude  Joshua,  not  only  from  the  number  of  the  spies, 
but  from  Canaan,  which  cannot  be  the  meaning.  In  the 
JE  narrative  also  it  is  clearly  implied,  as  will  be  afterwards 

1  The  critical  analysis  of  Num.  xiii. -xiv.  certainly  results  in  a  moss  of  con- 
tradictions (see  below,  pp.  356  ff. ).  Addis  says  of  the  JE  parts  :  "Attempts 
have  been  made  to  separate  the  component  documents.  .  .  .  But  the  task 
seems  to  be  hopeless,  and  there  is  nothing  like  agreement  in  results." — 
Hex.  i.  p.  165. 

1  Cf.  Chap.  X.  pp.  356  ff. 

*  Dillmann  and  Kittel  take  Joshua  to  be  included  among  the  spies  in 
the  J  narrative,  but  not  in  the  E  narrative — a  distinction  that  (alls,  if  JE 
are  one,  and  at  any  rate  is  an  acknowledgment  of  the  inclusion  of  Joshua 
in  the  combined  JE  story.  Cf.  Dillmann,  Num.- Jos.  p.  69,  and  on 
Num.  xxvi.  65  ;  xxxii.  12,  pp.  177,  195  ;  Kittel,  Hist,  of  Hebs.  p.  201. 
See  below,  p.  357. 


280      DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

seen,  that  the  spies,  or  some  of  them  (for  there  surely  were 
several  parties ;  they  did  not  all  inarch  in  a  body),  went 
through  the  whole  land  (Num.  xiii.  28,  29). 

The  last-named  instance  is  one  of  several  involving  the 
question  of  the  possibility  of  an  acquaintance  of  Deutero- 
nomy with  the  P  history.  The  denial  of  such  acquaintance 
is  founded  in  part  on  the  mention  of  Dathan  and  Abiram, 
and  the  silence  about  Korah,  in  chap.  xi.  6.1  Here,  it  is 
concluded,  the  mention  of  Korah  is  omitted  because  he 
had  no  place  in  the  JE  narration.  This,  however,  we 
would  point  out,  does  not  necessarily  follow.  Apart  from 
the  question  of  "  sources  "  in  Num.  xvi.,  it  is  evident  that, 
in  the  combined  uprising  there  narrated,  Dathan  and 
Abiram  represented  the  general  spirit  of  murmuring  in 
the  congregation  (vers.  12-15),  while  Korah  stood  for  the 
Levites,  in  their  aspiration  after  the  privileges  of  the  priest- 
hood (vers.  8-11).  This  of  itself  is  sufficient  reason  why  Moses, 
in  his  address  to  the  people,  should  refer  only  to  the  former.2 

A  more  definite  "  contradiction  " — likewise  implicated 
with  intricate  questions  of  analysis — is  in  the  brief  notice 
of  Aaron's  death,  and  of  the  journeyings  of  the  people  in 
chap.  x.  6,  7,  as  compared  with  the  notice  in  the  list  of 
stations  in  Num.  xxxiii.  In  Deuteronomy,  Aaron  is  stated 
to  have  died  at  Moserah,  while  his  death  is  placed  in 
Numbers  (ver.  38)  at  Mount  Hor ;  in  Deuteronomy,  four 
stations  are  mentioned  in  the  journeyings  (Bene-Jaakan, 
Moserah,  Gudgodah,  Jotbathah),  but  in  Numbers  (vers. 
31,  32)  the  first  two  are  named  in  inverse  order.  Moserah, 
however,  as  we  discover  from  comparison,  was  in  the 
immediate  neighbourhood  of  Hor,  and  there  is  evidence 
in  the  list  in  Numbers  itself  that  after  wandering  southwards 
to  Eziongeber,  at  the  Eed  Sea,  and  turning  again  north- 
wards, the  people  returned  in  the  fortieth  year  from  Kadesh 
to  the  district  of  Mount  Hor,  where  Aaron  died  (vers.  35-39 ; 
cf.  Num.  xx.).  The  old  camping  spots  would  then  be 
revisited,  as  stated  in  Deuteronomy.  The  mention  of 
these  places  may  thus  be  regarded  rather  as  an  un- 

1  On  this  incident,  see  below,  pp.  358-9. 

2  It  must  be  allowed  that  great  suspicion  attaches  to  the  clause — "  of 
Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram  " — in  Num.  xvi.  24,  27,  in  the  connection  in 
which  it  stands  with  mishlan  (dwelling),  which  everywhere  else  in  these 
narratives  is  the  designation  of  the  tabernacle  (not  of  an  ordinary  tent). 
Cf.  Straek,  in  loc. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       281 

designed  corroboration  of  the  accuracy  of  the  list  in 
Numbers.1 

Finally,  a  word  should  perhaps  be  said  on  the  alleged 
"contradiction"  between  the  law  in  Ex.  xxi.  12-14, 
and  the  Deuteronomic  appointment  of  three  cities  of 
refuge  (chap.  iv.  41-43 ;  cf.  xix.  1  ff.).  The  asylum  in  the 
older  law,  Wellhausen  argues,  is  the  altar ;  now  "  in  order 
not  to  abolish  the  right  of  asylum  along  with  altars  [mark 
the  change  to  the  plural],  he  [the  Deuteronomist]  appoints 
special  cities  of  refuge  for  the  innocent  who  are  pursued 
by  the  avenger  of  blood."  2  It  is  a  little  difficult  to  under- 
stand how  anyone  could  hope  to  persuade  the  people  of 
Josiah's  age  that  three  cities  of  refuge  had  been  appointed 
by  Moses  (three  more  afterwards)  when,  ex  hypothesi,  they 
knew  perfectly  well  that  up  to  their  day  no  such  cities 
existed.  The  whole  objection,  however,  is  largely  a  creation 
of  the  critic's  fancy,  as  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  future 
appointment  of  a  place  of  refuge  for  the  manslayer  is 
provided  for  in  the  very  law  of  Exodus  to  which  appeal  is 
made  (chap.  xxi.  13). 

3.  For  the  above  reasons  we  cannot  allow  that  a  case 
has  been  made  out  on  the  ground  of  discrepancies  in  laws 
and  history  for  denying  the  Deuteronomic  discourses  to  the 
great  lawgiver  with  whose  name  they  are  connected. 
When  these  are  set  aside,  there  remain  as  proofs  of  post- 
Mosaic  origin  chiefly  incidental  expressions,  as  "other  side 
of  (or  beyond)  Jordan,"  "unto  this  day,"  and  the  like. 
The  first  of  these  expressions — "other  side  of  Jordan" — 
is  much  relied  on,  as  showing  that  the  standpoint  of  the 
author  of  the  book  was  the  Westew  side  of  Jordan.8  If  we 
have  not  hitherto  taken  notice  of  this  favourite  argument, 
it  is  principally  because,  after  the  fairest  consideration  we 

1  The  supposition  that,  according  to  JE,  the  Israelites  stuck  immovably 
like  limpets  on  a  rock  to  Kadesh  lor  thirty-eight  years,  is  against  common 
sense,  and  can  only  be  made  out  by  tearing  the  narrative  to  pieces.  Even  then, 
the  command  to  the  Israelites  in  JE,  "Turn  ye,  and  get  you  into  the 
wilderness  by  the  way  of  the  Red  Sea"  (Num.  xiv.  25),  implies  intervening 
wanderings,  as  in  Num.  xxxiii.  In  the  beginning  of  the  fortieth  year  (not 
the  third,  as  Bleek),  the  Israelites  are  found  again  at  Kadesh  (chap.  zz.  1  ; 
cf.  Dill  maim ,  in  loc. ).  Criticism  rejects  the  thirty-eight  years'  wanderings,  but 
in  contradiction  to  all  the  sources,  J  E  D  P.  Cf.  Kittel's  remarks,  Hint,  of 
Hebs.  i.  pp.  231-32. 

3  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  33  ;  cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  O.T.  in  J.  C..  p.  854. 

*  Cf.  Driver,  Deut.  pp.  xlii  ff. 


282       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

have  been  able  to  give  it,  it  seems  to  us  to  have  extremely 
little  force.  So  far  as  the  expression  occurs  in  the  frame- 
work of  the  book  (e.g.,  chap.  i.  1,  5),  it  occasions  little 
difficulty,  but  it  may  appear  to  be  different  when  it  is  found 
in  the  discourses  themselves.  It  does  occur  there,  but  (as 
also  in  the  framework)  with  an  application  both  to  the 
Eastern  (chap.  iii.  8),  and,  more  commonly,  to  the  Western 
(chaps,  iii.  20,  25 ;  xi.  30),  sides  of  the  Jordan.1  Very  generally 
there  is  some  determinative  clause  attached,  to  show  which 
side  is  meant — "  beyond  Jordan,  toward  the  sunrising  "  (chap, 
iv.  41,  46),  "  eastward  "  (ver.  49),  "  behind  the  way  of  the 
going  down  of  the  sun  "  (chap.  xi.  30),  etc.  It  is  most  natural 
to  conclude  that  the  phrase  "  beyond  Jordan  "  was  a  current 
geographical  designation  for  the  Moabite  side  of  the  river ; 
but  that,  along  with  this,  there  went  a  local  usage,  deter- 
mined by  the  position  of  the  speaker.2  Far  more  reasonably 
may  we  argue  from  the  minute  and  serious  care  of  the  writer 
in  his  geographical  and  chronological  notices  in  the  intro- 
duction to  the  discourses  and  elsewhere,  that  he  means  his 
book  to  be  taken  as  a  genuine  record  of  the  last  utterances 
of  the  lawgiver. 

It  may  be  serviceable  at  this  stage  to  sum  up  the 
conclusions  to  which  the  discussions  in  this  chapter  have 
conducted  us. 

1.  The  discovery  of  "  the  book  of  the  law "  in  Josiah's 
day  was  a  genuine  discovery,  and  the  book  then  found  was 
already  old. 

2.  The  age  of  Manasseh  was  unsuitable  for   the   com- 
position of  Deuteronomy,  and  there  is  no  evidence   of  its 
composition  in  that  age.     The  ideas   of   Deuteronomy  no 

1  Num.  xxxii.  19  is  a  remarkable  case  of  the  use  of  the  phrase  in  both 
senses  in  a  single  verse.     Dr.   Driver  explains  the  passage,  not  very  con- 
vincingly, by  an  "  idiom  "  :  and  accounts  for  Deut.  iii.  20,  25  by  the  assumed 
position  of  the  speaker,  which,  he  thinks,  by  a  lapse,  is  forgotten  in  ver.  8, 
where  the  real  situation  is  betrayed.     We  may,  however,  pretty  safely  clear 
the  writer  of  Deuteronomy  from  the  suspicion  of  such   unconscious  "  be- 
trayals "  of  his  position. 

2  When  Dr.  Driver  says:  "It  is  of  course  conceivable  that  this  was  a 
habit  of  the  Canaanites,  but  it  can  hardly  be  considered  likely  that  the 
usage  suggested  by  it  passed  from  them  to  the  Israelites,  before  the  latter 
had  set  foot  in  the  land,"  f  to.  (p.  xliii),  he  seems  to  forget  that  the  fathers 
of  the  Israelites  had  lived  for  at  least  two  centuries  in  Canaan,  and  that  the 
traditions  and  hopes  of  the  people  were  all  bound  up  with  it  (cf.  their  words 
for  "  West,"  etc.). 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DEUTERONOMY       283 

doubt  lay  behind  Hezekiah's  reformation,  but  there  is  no 
evidence  of  the  presence  of  the  book,  or  of  its  composition,  at 
or  about  that  time.  Had  it  been  newly  composed,  or  then 
appeared  for  the  first  time,  we  should  have  expected  it  to 
make  a  sensation,  as  it  did  afterwards  in  the  time  of  Josiah. 
The  question  also  would  again  arise  as  to  its  Mosaic  claim, 
and  the  acknowledgment  of  this  by  Hezekiah  and  his  circle. 

3.  From  Hezekiah  upwards  till  at  least  the  time  of  the 
Judges,  or  the  immediately  post-Mosaic  age,  there  is  no 
period  to  which  the  composition  of  the  book  can  suitably 
be  referred,  nor  is  there  any  evidence  of  its  composition  in 
that  interval.     Traces  of  its  use  may  be  thought  to  be  found 
in  the  revision  of  Joshua,  in  speeches  like  those  of  Solomon 
(1  Kings  viii.),  in  Amaziah's  action  (2  Kings  xiv.  5,  6),  and 
in  allusions  in  the  early  prophets.1     But  this  we  do  not  at 
present  urge. 

4.  The  book  definitely  gives  itself  out  as  a  reproduction 
of  the  speeches  which  Moses  delivered  in  the  Ardbah  of 
Moab  before  his  death,  and  expressly  declares  that  Moses 
wrote  his  addresses  ("  this  law  "),  and  gave  the   book  into 
custody  of  the  priests. 

5.  The  internal  character  of  the  book,  in  its  Mosaic  stand- 
point, its  absence  of  reference  to  the  division  of  the  kingdom, 
and  the  archaic  and  obsolete  character  of  many  of  its  laws, 
supports  the  claim  to  a  high  antiquity  and  a  Mosaic  origin. 

6.  The  supposition  that  Deuteronomy  is  "  a  free  repro- 
duction," or  elaboration,  of  written  addresses  left  by  Moses, 
by  one  who  has  fully  entered  into  his  spirit,  and  continues 
his  work,  while  not  inadmissible,  if  the  facts  are  shown  to 
require  it,  is  unnecessary,  and,  in  view  of  the  actual  character 
of  the  book,  not  probable.     The  literary  gifts  of  Moses  were 
amply  adequate  to  the  writing  of  his  own  discourses  in  their 
present  form.     This  is  not  to  deny  editorial  revision  and 
annotation. 

7.  There  are  no  conclusive  reasons  in  the  character  of 
the  laws  or  of  the  historical  retrospects  for  denying   the 
authorship  of  the  discourses,  in  this  sense,  to  Moses. 

8.  It    seems    implied   in    Deut.  XXXL   9,   24-26,   that 
Deuteronomy  originally  subsisted  as  a  separate  book.     It 
may  have  done  so  for  a  longer  or  shorter  period,  and  separate 
copies  may  have  continued  to  circulate,  even  after  its  union 

1  See  below,  pp.  328  ff. 


284       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES : 

with  the  other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.1  It  was  probably 
a  separate  authentic  copy  which  was  deposited  in  the  temple, 
and  was  found  there  by  Hilkiah. 

9.  It  is  possible,  as  some  have  thought,  that  the  JE  Penta- 
teuchal  history  may  originally  have  contained  a  brief  account 
of  the  testamentary  discourses  of  Moses,  and  of  his  death 
(cf.  the  fragment,  chap.  xxxi.  -14,  15,  23).     This  would  be 
superseded  when  Deuteronomy  was  united  with  the  rest  of 
the  Pentateuch. 

10.  The  historical  laws  and  narratives  which  Deutero- 
nomy presupposes  must,  in  some  form,  have  existed  earlier 
than  the  present  book,  if  not  earlier  than  the  delivery  of  the 
discourses.      These    also,   therefore,  are    pushed    back,   in 
essentials,  into  the  Mosaic  age.     They  need  not,  however, 
have  been  then  completed,  or  put  together  in  their  present 
shape ;  or  may  only  have  furnished  the  basis  for  our  present 
narratives. 

The  relation  of  Deuteronomy  to  the  Priestly  Writing  has 
yet  to  be  considered. 

NOTE. — Steuernagel's  Theory  of  Deuteronomy:  A  word 
should  perhaps  be  said  on  the  novel  theory  of  Deuteronomy 
expounded  by  C.  Steuernagel  in  his  work,  Deuteronomium  und 
Josua  (1900).  Discarding,  with  much  else  (as  the  depend- 
ence of  Deuteronomy  on  the  Book  of  the  Covenant),  the 
view  of  a  division  of  the  Book  into  hortatory  and  legal 
portions,  Steuernagel  contends  for  a  division,  as  it  were 
transversely,  into  sections,  distinguished  respectively  by  the 
use  of  the  singular  ("thou,"  "thy,"  etc.)  and  the  plural 
("  ye,"  "  your,"  etc.)  numbers  (Sg  and  PI).  These  sections 
(PI  being  itself  highly  composite)  were  united  in  the  pre- 
Josianic  period,  and  subsequently  underwent  extensive 
enlargements  and  redactional  changes.  It  is  difficult  not 
to  regard  this  theory  as  another  instance  of  misplaced  in- 
genuity. The  use  of  singular  and  plural  affords  no  sufficient 
ground  for  distinguishing  different  authors.  The  nation 
addressed  as  "  thou "  was  also  a  "  ye,"  and  there  is  a  free 
transition  throughout  from  the  one  mode  of  speech  to  the 
other,  often  within  the  limits  of  the  same  verse  or  para- 
graph (cf.,  e.g.,  Deut.  i.  31 ;  iv.  10,  11 ;  25,  26 ;  34-36 ;  vi. 
1-3;  17,  18;  viii.  1,  2 ;  19,  20;  ix.  7;  xi.  12,  13,  etc.). 

1  See  below,  p.  376. 


CHAPTER   IX 

IDtfficultfes  anfc  {perplexities  of  tbe  Critical  t>£po« 
tbesis :  TTbe  iprfestl£  THndting.    n.  Tlbe 


"Nothing  in  fact  is  simpler  than  the  Grafian  hypothesis :  it  needs  only 
the  transference  of  a  single  source — the  collection  of  laws  named  commonly 
the  Orundschrift,  by  others  the  Book  of  Origins,  the  Writing  of  the  Older 
Elohist,  or  of  the  Annalist,  which  we  would  call  the  Book  of  Priestly  Law 
or  Religion — into  the  post-exilian  time,  into  the  period  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah,  and  at  one  stroke  the  'Mosaic'  period  is  wiped  out." — DUHM. 

"I  have  specially  drawn  attention  to  the  fact  that  one  result  of  these 
criticisms  must  inevitably  be  that,  for  all  those  who  are  convinced  of  the 
substantial  truth  of  the  above  results,  the  whole  ritualistic  system,  as  a 
system  of  divine  institution,  comes  at  once  to  the  ground.  .  .  .  The  whole 
support  of  this  system  is  struck  away,  when  it  is  once  ascertained  that  the 
Levitical  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  is  entirely  the  product  of  a  very 
late  age,  a  mere  figment  of  the  post-captivity  priesthood." — COLENSO. 

"But,  if  we  place  at  the  head  of  their  whole  history  [the  Hebrew 
nation's]  a  great  positive  act  of  the  will,  a  legislation  by  which  the  natural 
development  is  forestalled,  and  its  course  prescribed,  we  account  for  the  rise 
of  that  discrepancy  [the  sense  of  guilt,  consciousness  of  departure  from  the 
known  will  of  God]  and  the  peculiar  tone  of  the  national  character  among 
the  Hebrews." — DE  WETTE  (against  VATKE). 

"  But  again  the  questioning  spirit  revives  when  one  is  asked  to  believe 
that  Moses  is  partly  at  least  a  historic  figure.  Alas  !  how  gladly  would  one 
believe  it !  But  where  are  the  historical  elements  ?  ...  No  one  can  now  be 
found  to  doubt  that  Sargon  is  a  historical  personage  with  mythic  accretions. 
But  can  one  really  venture  to  say  the  like  of  Moses  I" — CHEYNE. 


CHAPTER  IX 

DIFFICULTIES  AND  PPLRPLEXITIES  OF  THE  CRITI- 
CAL HYPOTHESIS:  THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING. 
I.  THE  CODE 

IT  was  indicated  in  our  sketch  of  the  critical  development 
that  the  greatest  revolution  in  Pentateuchal  criticism  up 
to  the  present  has  been  the  acceptance  by  the  majority  of 
scholars  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen  contention  that  the  legisla- 
tion of  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  instead  of  being, 
as  was  formerly  all  but  universally  supposed,  the  oldest, 
is  in  reality  the  very  youngest  of  the  constituent  elements 
in  that  composite  work — not,  as  it  professes  to  be,  a  creation 
of  the  work  of  Moses,  but  a  production  of  priestly  scribes 
in  exilian  and  post-exilian  times.  Up  to  the  appearance  of 
Graf's  work  on  The  Historical  Hooks  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
1866,  as  was  then  pointed  out,  though  earlier  writers  like 
Von  Bohlen,  George,  and  Vatke  had  advocated  the  idea, 
and  Reuss,  Graf's  teacher,  had  been  inculcating  it  in  his 
class-room  at  Strassburg,1  the  hypothesis  of  a  post-exilian 
origin  of  the  law  had  met  with  no  general  acceptance.  De 
Wette  repudiated  it ; 2  Bleek  declared  it  to  be  "  decidedly 
false  to  hold  with  Vater,  Von  Bohlen,  Vatke,  and  George, 
that  Deuterouoray,  with  the  laws  it  contains,  is  older  than 
the  foregoing  books  with  their  legislation  " ; 8  even  Kuenen, 
in  1861,  pronounced  its  grounds  to  be  "  not  worthy  of  refuta- 
tion." 4  Since  the  publication  of  Graf's  book,  the  tide  has 

1  On  Rruss,  see  below,  p.  288. 

*  Introd.  ii.  p.  143.     Similarly  Ewald. 

*  Com.  on  Dent.,  Introd.  p.  107. 

4  See  quotation  from  Kuenen  in  full  in  Note  A.  Nearly  the  only  writer 
who  seems  to  have  had  a  glimpse  into  the  ]K>sml>ilitie.s  of  George's  view  was 
Hengstenberg,  who  wrote:  "The  view  maintained  l>y  De  Wette,  that 
Deuteronomy  waa  the  latest  of  all,  the  to]>stoiie  of  the  mythical  stnu-tun-, 
which  at  one  time  seemed  to  have  won  universal  acceptance,  begins  now  to 
yield  to  the  exactly  opposite  opinion,  that  Deuteronomy  is  the  most  ancient 

287 


288       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

decisively  turned,  and  the  previously  rejected  theory  has 
now  become  the  dominant  (though  by  no  means  the 
universally-accepted)  hypothesis  among  critical  scholars. 

There  are  many  reasons,  apart  from  the  skill  and 
plausibility  with  which  its  case  has  been  presented,  which 
account  for  the  fascination  of  this  theory  for  minds  that 
have  already  yielded  assent  to  the  previous  critical  develop- 
ments. It  is  not  without  justice,  as  we  shall  by  and  by  see, 
that  the  claim  is  made  for  the  Wellhausen  hypothesis  that 
it  is  the  logical  outcome  of  the  whole  critical  movement 
of  last  century.  A  chief  value  of  the  theory  is  that,  by  the 
very  startlingness  of  its  conclusions,  it  compels  a  halt,  and 
summons  to  a  reconsideration  of  the  long  course  by  which 
its  results  have  been  reached. 

I.  GRAF- WELLHAUSEN  THEORY  OF  THE  PRIESTLY  CODE 

We  shall  best  begin  by  sketching  more  fully  than  has 
yet  been  done  the  Graf- Wellhausen  position.  The  problem 
relates,  as  said,  to  the  age  and  character  of  that  large  body 
of  laws  found  in  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers,  which 
forms  the  kernel  of  the  writing  described  by  the  critics 
as  the  Priestly  Code.  Whereas  formerly  this  Levitical 
legislation  was  held  to  be  at  least  older  than  Deuteronomy, 
and  probably  in  its  main  parts  Mosaic,1  the  newer  theory 
supposes  it  to  be  the  work  of  scribes  in  the  exile,  or  after. 
It  is  not,  indeed,  contended,  as  we  shall  find,  that  everything 
in  the  Code  was  absolutely  the  creation  of  that  time.2 
There  had  been,  of  course,  a  temple,  priesthood,  religious 
institutions,  sacrificial  ritual,  priestly  rules  and  technique. 
Still  the  law,  as  elaborated  in  the  exile,  was  practically  a 
new  thing.  What  belonged  to  the  practice  of  a  previous 
age  was  taken  up,  transformed,  had  a  new  meaning  put  into 
it,  was  brought  under  new  leading  ideas,  was  developed  and 

among  all  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch." — Gen.  of  Pent.  i.  p.  58  (he  refers 
to  George's  work). 

1  Thus,  e.g.,  Bleek,  Inlrod.  i.  pp.  212  ff. 

•  Of.  Graf,  as  above,  p.  93  ;  Kuenen,  Eel.  of  Israsl,  ii.  pp.  96,  1 92.  (But 
see  below,  p.  291.)  Reuss,  on  this  point,  does  not  go  so  far  as  some  of  h is 
successors.  He  says:  "It  is  self-evident  that  the  existence  of  a  Levitical 
tradition  in  relation  to  ritual,  as  early  as  the  days  of  the  kings,  cannot  be 
denied  ;  we  cannot  speak,  however,  of  a  written,  official,  and  sacred  codex 
of  this  kind."— Geschichte der  Hett.  Schriften  A.  T.  i.  p.  81  (in  Ladd,  i.  p.  530). 
See  below,  pp.  300  ff. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     289 

enlarged  by  new  rites  and  institutions.  Above  all,  in  onlcr 
to  clothe  it  with  a  Mosaic  character,  and  secure  for  it  the 
necessary  authority,  old  and  new  alike  were  thrown  back 
into  the  age  of  Moses  and  the  wilderness,  and  were  represented 
as  originating  and  being  put  into  force  there.  This  Mosaic1 
dress  was  a  fiction.  The  elaborate  descriptions  of  the 
tabernacle  and  its  arrangements,  the  dispositions  of  the  camp 
in  the  wilderness,  the  accounts  of  the  consecration  of  Aaron 
and  his  sons,  of  the  choice  and  setting  apart  of  the  Levites, 
of  the  origin  of  the  passover,  etc. — all  was  a  "  product  of 
imagination." l 

The  idea  of  the  Code  was  not  wholly  original.  The  first  • 
conception  and  sketch  of  a  Priestly  Code  was  in  Ezekiel's 
vision  of  the  restored  temple  in  the  closing  chapters  of  his 
book.2  The  scheme  of  the  scribes,  however,  was  not  that 
of  Ezekiel,  but  was  independently  wrought  out.  A  chief 
feature  borrowed  from  the  prophet's  programme  was  the 
idea  of  the  Levites  as  a  class  of  temple  servants  subordinate 
to  the  priests.  It  will  be  seen  below s  how,  in  Ezek.  xliv.. 
the  law  is  laid  down  that  the  priests  who  had  gone 
astray  into  idolatry  were  to  be  degraded  from  their  priestly 
ottice,  and  made  servants  in  the  sanctuary.  Only  the* 
Zadokites,  who  had  remained  faithful,  were  to  retain  their 
priestly  dignity.  This,  according  to  the  theory,  is  the  origin 
of  the  class  of  Levites.  The  priests  thus  degraded  were,  it 
is  contended,  the  "  disestablished  priests  "  of  the  high  places, 
for  whom  some  sort  of  provision  had  to  be  made.  We  are 
called  to  trace  here  a  development.  Deuteronomy  had,  it  is 
alleged,  allowed  such  "disestablished  priests"  the  full 
rights  of  priesthood  when  they  came  up  to  the  temple; 
Ezekiel  degrades  them  to  the  rank  known  afterwards  as 
Levites:  now  the  Priests'  Code  gives  them  a  permanent 
standing  in  the  sanctuary,  and  represents  them  as  always 
having  had  this  secondary  position,  and  as  having  been 
originally  honourably  set  apart  by  Jehovah  for  His  service 
in  the  wilderness.  The  Israelites  being  thus  organised  as 
a  hierarchy — "  the  clergy  the  skeleton,  the  high  priest  the 
head,  and  the  tabernacle  the  heart"4 — liberal  provision  is 

1  Cf.  Kuenen,  Rtl.  of  Israel,  ii.  pp.  171,  etc. 

*  Ezek.  xl.  etc.  »  See  below,  pp.  315  ff. 

*  Wellhausen,  Hist  of  Israel,  p.  127.     Cf.  p.  8  :  "The  Mosaic  theocracy, 
with  the  tabernacle  at  its  centre,  the  high  priest  at  its  head,  the  priests 
and  Lcvitee  aa  iU  organs,  ths  legitimate  cultus  as  its  popular  function. 

19 


290       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES  : 

made  for  the  sacred  body.  Tithes,  hitherto  unknown  for 
such  a  purpose,  are  appointed  for  the  support  of  the  priests 
and  Levites,  and  the  priestly  revenues  are  otherwise  greatly 

,  enlarged.  Forty-eight  cities,  with  pasturages,1  are — only, 
of  course,  on  paper — set  apart  for  the  Levitical  order.  The 
sacrificial  system,  now  centralised  in  the  tabernacle,  is 
enlarged,  and  recast  in  its  provisions.  Sin-  and  trespass- 
olferings  (the  sin-offering  is  held  by  Wellhausen  to  appear 
first  in  Ezekiel) z  are  introduced ;  a  cycle  of  feasts  is  estab- 
lished, with  new  historical  meanings;  an  annual  day  of 

v atonement — previously  unheard  of — is  instituted.  Sacrifice 
loses  its  older  joyous  character,  and  becomes  an  affair  of  the 
priesthood  —  a  ritual  of  atonement,  with  associations  of 
gloom.3 

Still  better  to  facilitate  the  introduction  of  this  novel 
scheme,  a  history  is  invented  to  suit  it.  In  its  preparatory 
part  in  Genesis,  this  history  goes  back  to  the  creation,  and 
is  marked  in  the  patriarchal  period  by  the  rigid  exclusion 
of  all  sacrifices;4  in  the  Mosaic  part,  there  is  the  freest 
indulgence  in  the  invention  of  incidents,  lists,  genealogies, 
numbers,  etc.  All  this,  if  we  accept  Wellhausen's  view, 
was,  some  time  before  the  coming  of  Ezra  to  Jerusalem  in 
458  B.C.,  put  together  in  Babylon;  was  afterwards  combined 
with  the  previously  existing  JE  and  D,  which  knew  nothing 
of  such  legislation,  and  indeed  in  a  multitude  of  ways 
contradicted  it ;  finally,  in  444  B.C.,  as  related  in  Neh.  viii., 
was  produced  and  read  by  Ezra  to  the  people,  was  accepted 
by  them,  and  became  thenceforth  the  foundation  of  post- 
exilic  religion.  Precisely  at  this  crucial  point,  however,  a 
serious  divergence  of  opinion  reveals  itself  in  the  school. 
According  to  Wellhausen,  it  was  the  completed  Pentateuch, 
substantially,  that  was  brought  by  Ezra  to  Jerusalem,  and 
read  by  him  to  the  people ; 6  according  to  perhaps  the 
majority  of  his  followers,  it  was  only  the  Priests  Code  that 
was  then  made  known,  and  the  combination  with  JE  and  D 

1  The  Levitioal  cities  are  held  by  Wellhausen  to  be  a  transformation  of 
the  old  bamo/h  or  high  places. — Ibid.  pp.  37-38,  162. 

2  Ibid.  p.  75. 

8  Ibid.  p.  81  :  "  No  greater  contrast  could  be  conceived  than  the  monoto- 
nous seriousness  of  the  so-called  Mosaic  worship."  Delitzsch  and  others  have 
shown  the  groundlessness  of  this  allegation. 

4  See  above,  p.  156. 

"Substantially  at  least  Ezra's  law-book  must  be  regarded  as  practically 
identical  with  our  Pentateuch." — Ibid.  p.  497.     Cf.  p.  404. 


THE  1'IUKSTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     291 

did  not  take  place  till  later,  after  new  redactions  and 
developments  of  the  Code.1  Wellhausen,  who  retains  his 
opinion,  argues  convincingly  that  the  narrative  (cf.  Neh. 
ix.)  clearly  requires  that  the  book  should  be  the  whole 
Pentateuch;2  the  others  as  triumphantly  ask  how  Codes  of 
laws,  which  ex  hypothesi  were  in  flat  contradiction  of  each 
other,  could  simultaneously  be  brought  forward  with  any  hope 
of  acceptance !  We  agree  that  neither  set  of  critics  succeeds 
in  answering  the  others'  reasons. 

Such,  in  barest  outline,  is  the  nature  of  the  scheme 
which  is  to  take  the  place  of  the  "  traditional "  view  of  the 
Mosaic  origin  of  the  Levitical  legislation.  It  will,  we 
venture  to  predict,  be  to  future  generations  one  of  the 
greatest  psychological  puzzles  of  history  how  such  a 
hypothesis,  loaded,  as  we  believe  it  to  be,  with  external 
and  internal  incredibilities,  should  have  gained  the  remark- 
able ascendency  it  has  over  so  many  able  minds.  It  is  a 
singular  tribute  to  the  genius  of  Wellhausen  that  he  should 
have  been  able  to  secure  this  wide  acceptance  for  his  theory, 
and  to  make  that  appear  to  his  contemporaries  as  the 
highest  wisdom  which  nearly  all  his  predecessors  scouted 
as  the  extreme  of  folly.  His  feat  is  hardly  second  to  that 
of  Ezra  himself,  who,  on  this  new  showing,  succeeded  in 
imposing  on  his  generation  the  belief  that  a  complex  system 
of  laws  and  institutions  had  been  given  by  Moses,  and  had 
been  in  operation  since  the  days  of  that  lawgiver,  though, 
till  the  moment  of  his  own  promulgation,  nothing  had  been 
heard  of  them  by  anyone  present ! 8 

1  For  a  sketch  of  these  supposed  developments  after  444  B.C.,  cf.  Kuenen, 
Hex.  pp.  302  tf.  ;  Professor  W.  Robertson  Smith,  0.  T.  inj.  C.,  NoteF.  Pro- 
fessor Smith  differs  again  in  thinking  that  "the  Priestly  Code  has  far  too 
many  points  of  contact  with  the  actual  situation  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  actual 
usage  of  the  second  temple  [?],  to  lend  plausibility  to  the  view  that  it  was 
an  abstract  system  evolved  in  Babylonia,  by  someone  who  was  remote  from 
the  contemporary  movement  at  Jerusalem  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  its  author 
must  have  stood  .  .  .  outside  the  petty  local  entanglements  that  hampered 
the  Judaean  priests"  (pp.  448-49).  He  holds  that  to  conjecture  "  that  Ezra 
was  himself  the  author  of  the  Priests'  Code  is  to  step  into  a  region  of 
purely  arbitrary  guesswork "  (p.  449).  Thus  the  theories  eat  up  each 
other. 

1  Professor  H.  P.  Smith  gets  rid  of  Ezra  and  the  narrative  altogether. 
Cf.  below,  p.  295. 

*  "  They  were  not,"  says  Kuenwi,  "  laws  which  had  been  long  in  existence, 
and  which  were  now  proclaimed  afresh  and  accepted  by  the  people,  after 
having  been  forgotten  for  a  while.  The  priestly  ordinances  were  made  known 
and  imposed  upon  the  Jewish  nation  HOW  /or  the  first  tint.  As  we  hare 


292       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 


II.   INITIAL  INCREDIBILITIES  OF  THE  THEORY 

tThere  are,  it  seems  to  us,  three  huge  incredibilities  which 
attach  to  this  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Levitical  legislation, 
and  to  these,  at  the  outset,  as  illustrative  of  the  difficulties 
in  which  the  modern  criticism  involves  itself,  we  would  refer. 
*     1.  There  is  no  mistaking  in  this  case  the  serious  nature 
,of  the  moral  issue.     In  the  case  of  "  the  book  of  the  law  " 
brought  to  light  in  Josiah's  reign,  there  is  at  least  always 
open  the  assumption  of  a  literary  artifice  which  involved 
no  dishonest  intention  on  the   part  of  £he  writer.     Here, 
on  the  other  hand,  there  can  be  no  evading  of  the  meaning 
of  the  transaction.     What  we  have  is  the  deliberate  con- 
istruction  of  an  elaborate  Code  of  laws  with  the  express 
design  of   passing  it  off  upon  the  people  in  the  name  of 
IMoses.     It  is  not  a  sufficient  reply  to  urge  that  much  in 
!|bhe  law  was  simply  the  codification  of  pre-exilian  usage. 
A  codification  of  ancient  law — if  that  were  all  that  was 
meant — even  though  it  involved  some  degree  of  re-editing 
and  expansion,  is  a  process  to  which  no  one  could  reasonably 
take  exception,  provided  it  were  proved  that  it  had  actually 
taken  place.1     But  though  this  notion  is,  as  we  shall  see,  a 
good  deal  played  with,  the  Wellhausen  theory  is  assuredly 
not  fairly  represented,  when,  with  a  view  to  turn  the  edge 
of  an  objection,  it  is  spoken  of  as  mainly  a  work  of  "  codifica- 
tion."    The   very  essence  of  the   theory,  as  Kuenen  and 
.Wellhausen  expound  it,  is,  that  in  all  that  gives  the  Priestly 
Code  its  distinctive  character,  it  is  something  entirely  new.2 
There  never,  e.g.,  existed  such  an  ark  or  tabernacle  as  the 
Code  describes  with  minute  precision.     The  tabernacle   is 

seen,  no  written  ritual  legislation  yet  existed  in  Ezekiel's  time,"  etc. — Eel. 
of  Israel,  ii.  p.  231.  Cf.  Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  408. 

1  Few  of  the  critics  of  the  Wellhausen  hypothesis  object,  within  reasonable 
limits,  to  a  theory  of  codification,  but  treat  it  as  a  question  of  evidence.  Cf. 
Robertson's  Early  Religion  of  Israel,  p.  394.  It  already  goes  beyond  codi- 
fication when  the  object  is  to  stamp  pre-existing  usage  with  a  divine 
sanction. 

3  According  to  Wellhausen,  the  Code  was  not  only  not  in  operation,  but 
"it  did  not  even  admit  of  being  carried  into  effect  in  the  conditions  that 
prevailed  previous  to  the  exile. " — Hint,  of  Israel,  p.  12.  "  The  idea  that  the 
Priests'  Code  was  extant  before  the  exile,"  says  Kautzsch,  "could  only  be 
maintained  on  the  assumption  that  no  man  knew  of  it,  not  even  the  spiritual 
leaders  of  the  people,  such  as  the  priests  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel." — Lit.  of 
O.T.,  p.  116. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     293 

a  pure  fiction,  obtained  by  halving  the  dimensions  of  the) 
temple,  and  making  it  portable.1  There  never  was  a  choice! 
of  Aaron  and  his  sons  to  be  priests,  or  a  separation  of  the' 
Levites  to  be  ministers  to  the  priests.  There  never  was  a 
tithe  system  for  the  support  of  priests  and  Levites;  there 
never  were  Levitical  cities ;  there  never  were  sin-  and 
trespass-offerings,  or  a  day  of  atonement,  such  as  the  Code 
prescribes;  there  never  were  feasts  having  the  historical 
origin  and  reference  assigned  to  them  in  the  law.  These 
institutions  were  not  only  not  Mosaic,  but  they  never 
existed  at  all ;  and  the  cmistructor&  of  thie  Code  knew  it,  for 
they  were  .themselves  the  inventors.  This  cannot  be  evaded 
by  saying,  as  is  sometimes  done,  that  it  was  a  well-recognised 
custom  to  attribute  all  new  legislation  to  Moses.  For  first, 
apart  from  the  singular  problem  which  this  raises  for  the 
critics  who  attribute  no  laws  to  Moses,  such  a  custom 
simply  did  not  exist;2  and,  second,  this  is  not  a  case  of 
mere  literary  convention,  but  one  of  serious  intention,  with 
a  view  to  gaining  a  real  advantage  by  the  use  of  the  law- 
giver's authority.  The  nearest  parallel,  perhaps,  that 
suggests  itself  is  the  promulgation  in  Europe  in  the  ninth 
century  of  our  era  of  the  great  collection  of  spurious 
documents  known  as  the  Isidorian  Decretals,  carrying  back 
the  loftiest  claims  of  the  mediaeval  Papacy  to  apostolic  men 
of  the  first  century.  No  one  hesitates  to  speak  of  these 
spurious  decretals,  which  gained  acceptance,  and  were  for 
long  incorporated  in  the  Canon  law,  by  their  rightful  name 
of  "  forgeries."  8  Can  we  help  giving  the  same  designation 
to  the  handiwork  of  these  exilian  constructors  of  a  pseudo- 
Mosaic  Code?4  It  is  futile  to  speak,  in  excuse,  of  the 

'See  above,  pp.  165  ff. 

1  E.g.,  EzekicI  did  not  attribute  his  laws  to  Moses  ;  the  Chronicler  did 
not  attribute  the  elaborate  ordinance*  in  1  Chron.  xxiii.  to  Moses  but  to 
David  ;  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  themselves  did  not  attribute  their  modified 
arrangements  to  Moses.  Circumcision  was  not  attributed  to  Moses,  etc. 
We  do  not  know  of  any  laws  being  attributed  to  Moses  which  were  not 
believed  to  be  Mosaic. 

'  Hallam  says  of  these  in  his  Middle  Ages :  "  Upon  these  spurious 
decretals  was  built  tin-  great  fabric  of  pupal  supremacy  over  the  different 
national  Churches  ;  a  fabric  which  has  stood  after  its  foundation  crumbled 
beneath  it ;  for  no  one  has  pretended  to  deny,  for  the  last  two  centuries, 
that  the  imposture  is  too  palpable  for  any  but  the  most  ignorant  ages  to 
credit"  (Stwknt'x  Hallam,  p.  l'05). 

4  "  Such  procedure,"  sav  U chin,  "would  have  to  be  called  a  fraud." — 
Einlcit.  i.  p.  217. 


294      DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES- 

different  standards  of  literary  honesty  in  those  days.  It 
is  not  overstepping  the  mark  to  say,  as  before,  that  men 
like  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  Ezra,  were  as  capable  of  dis- 
tinguishing between  truth  and  falsehood,  as  conscious  of 
the  sin  of  deceit,  as  zealous  for  the  honour  of  God,  as 
incapable  of  employing  lying  lips,  or  a  lying  pen,  in  the 
service  of  Jehovah,  as  any  of  our  critics  to-day.1  We 
simply  cannot  conceive  of  these  men  as  entering  into  such 
a  conspiracy,  or  taking  part  in  such  a  fraud,  as  the 
Wellhausen  theory  supposes.  For  it  was  undeniably  as 
genuine  Mosaic  ordinances  that  it  was  meant  to  pass  off 
these  laws  upon  the  people.  Let  only  the  effect  be  imagined 
had  Ezra  interpolated  his  reading  with  the  occasional  ex- 
planation that  this  or  that  principal  ordinance,  given  forth 
by  him  as  a  law  of  Moses  in  the  wilderness,  was  really  a 
private  concoction  of  some  unknown  priest  in  Babylon — 
perchance  his  own ! 

v  2.  Besides  the  moral,  there  confronts  us,  in  the  second 
place,  a  historiuil  incredibility.  We  do  not  dwell  on 
the  peculiar  taste  of  these  exilian  scribes,  of  whose  very 
existence,  it  must  be  remembered,  we  have  not  a  morsel  of 
evidence,  who,  out  of  their  own  heads,  occupied  themselves 
with  tireless  ingenuity  in  elaborating  these  details  of 
tabernacle,  encampments,  and  ceremonial,  planning  new 
laws,  festivals,  and  regulations  for  imaginary  situations — 
devising  everything  with  such  care,  and  surrounding  it  with 
so  perfect  an  air  of  the  wilderness,  that,  as  Wellhausen 
owns,2  no  trace  of  the  real  date  by  any  chance  shines 
through.  Neither  do  we  dwell  on  the  singular  unity  of 
mind  which  must  have  pervaded  their  ranks  to  enable  them 
to  concert  so  well-compacted  and  coherent  a  scheme  as,  on 
any  showing,  the  Levitical  law  is.3  We  shall  assume  that 
some  peculiarly  constituted  minds  might  delight  in  evolving 
these  fanciful  things,  and  might  even,  at  a  sufficient  distance 
of  time,  get  their  romance  by  mistake  accepted  as  history. 

1  See  above,  p.  259.  Cf.  Jer.  viii.  8 ;  xiv.  14  ;  xxiii.  32  ;  Ezek.  xiii.  6, 
7,  19,  etc. 

3  "It  tries  hard  to  i'nitite  t'«e  costume  of  the  Mosaic  period  and,  with 
whatever  success,  to  disguise  its  own.  ...  It  guards  itself  against  itll 
reference  to  later  times  and  a  settled  life  in  Canaan.  ...  It  keeps  itselt 
carefully  and  strictly  within  the  limits  of  the  situation  in  the  wilderness." — 
Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  9.  Riehm  says:  "Nowhere  are  any  anachronisms  found 
in  the  Levitical  legislation." — Eiid.  i.  p.  217. 

*  Cf.  Note  B  011  Unity  of  the  Law. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     295 

The  thing  which  needs  explanation  is,  how  the  scheme,  once 
conceived,  should  be  ahle  to  get  under  weigh  as  it  did,  in 
the  actual  circumstances  of  the  return  from  the  exile.  That 
problem  has  only  to  be  faced  to  show  how  incredible  is  the 
critical  solution. 

We  turn  to  the  account  of  the  production  and  reading  of 
the  law  by  Ezra  in  Neh.  viii.,  as  before  we  did  to  the  narrative 
of  the  finding  of  "  the  book  of  the  law  "  in  2  Kings,  and  are 
there  presented  with  a  plain,  unvarnished  tale,  which  bears 
upon  its  face  every  mark  of  truth.  We  read  how  the  people 
of  Jerusalem,  gathered  "as  one  man  into  the  broad  place 
that  was  before  the  water-gate,"  asked  Ezra  the  scribe  "  to 
bring  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  which  Jehovah  had 
commanded  to  Israel."1  Ezra,  who  before  has  been 
described  as  "a  ready  scribe  in  the  law  of  Moses,  which 
Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  had  given," 2  and  as  coming 
from  Babylon  with  the  law  of  God  in  his  hand,3  now,  at  the 
people's  request,  produced  the  book,  and  from  an  improvised 
"  pulpit  of  wood "  read  its  contents  to  the  congregation 
"from  morning  till  midday,"  while  others  who  stood  by 
"  gave  the  sense."  4  This  was  repeated  from  the  first  to  the 
last  day  of  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  in  the  seventh  month.6 
Everything  in  the  narrative  is  plain  and  above  board.  There 
is  not  a  hint  that  anything  contained  in  this  "  book  of  the 
law  "  was  new,"  though  the  knowledge  of  much  that  it  con- 
tained had  evidently  been  lost.  The  entire  congregation 
listen  to  it  with  unquestioning  faith  as  "  the  law  of  Mosea" 
They  hear  all  its  enactments  about  priests  and  Levites,  its 
complicated  regulations  about  sacrifices,  about  sin-offerings, 

1  Neh.  viii.  1.  »  Ezra  vii.  6. 

»  Ezra  vii.  14.  4  Neh.  viii.  2-8. 

'  Yen.  8, 18.  Professor  H.  P.  Smith,  unlike  Welihausen  and  Kuenen,  who 
found  upon  it,  discredits,  as  before  intimated,  the  whole  story,  and  doubts 
the  very  existence  of  Ezra.  His  account  is  worth  quoting,  as  a  specimen  of 
a  phase  of  criticism  :  "  During  the  century  after  N'-lu-muli  the  community 
in  Judah  was  becoming  more  rigid  in  its  exclusivcness  and  in  its  devotion  to 
the  ritual.  Ezra  in  the  impersonation  of  Ixjth  tendencies.  Whether  there 
was  a  scribe  named  Ezra  is  not  a  matter  of  great  importance.  Very  likely 
there  was  such  a  scribe  to  whose  name  tradition  attached  itself.  First,  it 
transferred  the  favour  of  Artaxerxes  to  him  from  Nehemiah.  Then  it  made 
him  the  hero  of  the  introduction  of  the  law,  and  finally  it  attributed  to  him 
the  abrogation  of  the  mixed  marriages.  .  .  .  The  wish  was  father  to  the 
thought,  and  the  thought  gave  rise  to  tlie  story  of  Ezra.  F.xra  was  the  ideal 
s<  rit»',  as  Solomon  was  the  ideal  king,  projected  upon  the  background  of  an 
earlier  age."—  O.T.  Hi*t.  pp.  396-97. 

«  Cf.  Kittel,  HisL  of  Ifebi.  i.  p.  104. 


296       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

about  tithes,  but  do  not  raise  a  question.  Nothing,  on  the 
premises  of  the  theory,  could  be  more  surprising.  Tithes 
of  corn  and  oil,  not  to  say  of  cattle,  for  the  support  of  the 
Levitical  order,  had  never  before  been  heard  of,1  but  the 
people  submit  to  the  burden  without  dissent.  They  hear 
of  a  day  of  atonement,  and  of  the  solemn  and  elaborate 
ritual  by  which  it  is  to  be  annually  observed,  but  it  does 
not  occur  to  them  that  this  institution  has  been  unknown 
in  all  the  past  of  their  history.  The  Levites,  descendants, 
on  the  theory,  of  Ezekiel's  degraded  idolatrous  priests — of 
whose  degradation,  however,  to  this  lower  rank,  history 
contains  no  mention  —  show  no  amazement  when  they 
learn  for  the  first  time  that  their  tribe  was  specially  set 
apart  by  Jehovah  for  His  service  in  the  wilderness,  and  had 
then  a  liberal  provision  made  for  their  wants;  that  cities 
even  had  been  appointed  for  them  to  dwell  in.  Many 
of  the  more  learned  in  the  gathering  —  men  versed  in 
genealogies  and  priestly  traditions — must  have  been  well 
aware  that  the  most  striking  of  the  ordinances  which  Ezra  was 
reading  from  his  roll,  were  unhistorical  inventions,  yet  they 
take  it  all  in.  There  was,  as  the  Book  of  Nehemiah  itself 
clearly  shows,  a  strongly  disaffected  party,  and  a  religiously 
faithless  party,  in  the  city, — a  faction  keenly  opposed  to 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,2 — but  no  one  raises  a  doubt.  Priests 
and  people,  we  learn  from  Malachi,  were  alike  shamefully 
remiss  in  the  discharge  of  their  obligations,8  yet  they  never 
question  the  genuineness  of  any  article  in  the  Code.  The 
very  Samaritans — the  bitterest  of  the  Jews'  enemies  in  this 
period — receive  not  long  after  the  whole  law  at  the  hands 
of  the  Jews  as  the  undoubted  law  of  Moses.4  Is  anything 
in  the  "  traditional "  theory  more  astounding,  or  harder  to 
believe,  than  all  this  is?5  There  is  another  fact.  Ezra's 

1  Wellhausen  says  the  tithe  was  introduced  by  Ezra,  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  166. 

2Cf.  Neh.  vi.  10-19;  viii.  etc.  W.  R.  Smith  even  says:  "All  the 
historical  indications  point  to  the  priestly  aristocracy  being  the  chief 
opponents  of  Ezra." — Q,T.  in  J.  C.,  p.  448.  This  makes  matters  still  more 
inexplicable. 

3  Mai.  i.  6-14  ;  iii.  7-15  ;  Neh.  xiii.  10  ff.     Of.  W.  R.  Smith,  as  above, 
p.  445. 

4  See  below,  Chap.  X.  p.  370,  and  Note  there. 

8  Wellhausen  says  :  "  As  we  are  accustomed  to  infer  the  date  of  the  com- 
position of  Deuteronomy  from  its  publication  and  introduction  by  Josiah,  so 
we  must  infer  the  date  of  the  composition  of  the  Priestly  Code  from  its 
publication  and  introduction  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah." — Hist,  of  Israel, 


Tin:  PKIKSTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     297 

reading  of  the  law  was  in  444  B.C.  But  nearly  a  century 
earlier,  in  536  B.C.,  at  the  time  of  the  first  return  under 
Zerubbabel,  we  find  no  inconsiderable  part  of  the  law  already 
in  operation.  Priests  and  Levites  are  there ;  the  high  priest 
is  there;1  a  complete  organisation  of  worship  is  there, 
morning  and  evening  sacrifices  are  there,  set  feasts  are 
there,  etc.*  Even  if  details  are  challenged,  the  central  facts 
in  this  narrative,  e.g.,  the  presence  of  priests  and  Levites, 
and  of  an  organisation  of  worship,  cannot  be  overthrown.8 

3.  There  is  yet,  however,  a  third  incredibility  arising 
from  the  ^unsuitdbUity  of  the  Code  itself.  We  found  the 
Code  of  Deuteronomy  to  be  in  many  respects  unsuitable  to 
the  age  of  Josiah.  But  the  unsuitability  of  Deuteronomy 
is  slight  compared  with  the  lack  of  agreement  in  the 
Levitical  Code  with  the  state  of  things  in  the  days  of  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  theory,  the 
Code  was  designed  to  be  put  in  force  after  the  return  from 
the  exile.  The  return,  therefore,  even  in  the  exile,  must 
have  been  confidently  expected.  Yet,  when  the  Code  is 
examined,  nothing  could  seem  less  suitable  for  its  purpose. 
The  whole  wilderness  framework  of  the  legislation  was  out 
of  date  and  place  in  that  late  age.  The  sanctuary  is  a 
portable  tabernacle,  whereas  the  circumstances  of  the  time 
demanded  a  temple.  Many  of  the  laws,  like  that  requiring 
that  all  sacrifices  should  be  offered  at  the  door  of  the 
tabernacle,  with  the  reason  for  this  regulation,4  were  quite 
out  of  keeping  with  the  new  conditions,  had,  indeed,  no 
relevancy  from  the  time  when  the  people  entered  on  a 
settled  life  in  Canaan.  Suitable  in  its  place,  if  it  precedes 
the  relaxing  rule  of  Deut.  xii.  15,  it  is  unintelligible  after. 
Other  parts  of  the  Code  had  to  be  dropped  or  changed,  as 
inapplicable  to  the  post-exilian  order  of  things.  There  was, 
e.g.,  no  ark,  or  priestly  Urim  or  Thummim,  in  the  second 

p.  408.  We  contend,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  narrative  of  this  introduction 
is  a  conclusive  disproof  ol  Wellhausen's  view  of  its  date. 

1  Cf.  Zech.  iii.  1. 

s  Kzra  iii.  2  ff. 

1  Delitzach  says :  "  It  is  a  fact  an  credibly  attested  as  possible  that  the 
distinction  of  ranks  of  priests  and  Levites  existed  already  in  B.C.  536,  and 
long  before  B.C.  444  ;  and  indeed  so  uncou tested,  MO  thoroughly  established, 
so  strictly  maintained,  tint  it  must  be  dated  back  beyond  the  exile,  in  which 
it  cannot  have  originated,  as  one  regulated  by  law  and  custom  in  the  pre- 
exilian  time." — Luthardt's  Znlxchrift,  1880,  p.  268. 

4  Lev.  xvii.  1-4.     See  below,  p.  314. 


298       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES : 

temple.  The  tax  imposed  by  Nehemiah  was  a  third  part  of  a 
shekel,  instead  of  the  half -shekel  of  the  law.1  The  law,  in  one 
place,  prescribes  twenty-five  years  as  the  age  for  the  Levites 
entering  on  service,  and  in  another  place  thirty  years.2  We 
find,  however,  that,  after  the  return,  neither  of  these  laws 
was  adopted,  but,  in  accordance  with  a  rule  ascribed  in 
Chronicles  to  David,  the  Levites  commenced  their  duties  at 
the  age  of  twenty.3  A  more  striking  example  of  unsuitability 
to  contemporary  conditions  is  found  in  the  tithe-laws,  declared 
to  be  a  direct  creation  of  the  exile.  The  Levitical  law  in 
Numbers  is  based  on  the  assumption  of  a  large  body  of 
Levites,  and  a  relatively  small  body  of  priests.  The  tithes 
are  to  be  paid  directly  to  the  Levites,  who  are  then  required 
to  give  a  tenth  of  what  they  receive  to  the  priests.4  But 
these  provisions  were  absolutely  unsuitable  to  the  times 
succeeding  the  exile,  when,  as  we  see  from  the  Book  of 
Ezra,  the  number  of  Levites  who  returned  was  very  small, 
while  the  number  of  priests  was  large.5  Instead  of  ten 
Levites  for  every  priest,  the  proportion  may  have  been  about 
twelve  or  thirteen  priests  for  every  Levite.  This  rendered 
completely  nugatory  the  arrangements  of  the  Code,  and 
made  readjustment  inevitable.  Wellhausen  calls  this 
discrepancy  "a  trifling  circumstance,"8  but  fails  to  explain 
why  a  law  should  have  been  promulgated  so  entirely  un- 
suited  to  the  actual  situation.  The  history,  besides,  has  no 
mention  of  the  tithing  of  cattle  under  Nehemiah  as  pre- 
scribed by  the  law — only  of  tithes  of  field  produce.7  As  if 
to  render  the  contrast  more  striking,  while  we  have  in  the 
Code  these  rules  about  tithes,  so  absolutely  unsuitable  to 
the  circumstances  of  the  exile,  with  its  numerous  priests 
and  handful  of  Levites,  we  have,  on  the  other  hand,  mention 
in  the  history  of  an  extensive  personnel  connected  with  the 
service  of  the  temple — porters,  Nethinim,  children  of 

1  Ex.  xxx.  11-10  ;  cf.  Neh.  x.  32. 

3  Num.  iv.  23,  30,  etc.  ;  cf.  viii.  24.  The  LXX  makes  both  passages 
thirty  years.  This  is  one  of  those  unessential  variations  in  laws,  which,  if 
the  ordinary  harmonistic  explanation  is  not  accepted,  viz.,  that  the  one  law 
(Num.  viii.)  refers  to  the  lighter  service  of  the  tabernacle  itself,  the  other 
(Num.  iv.)  to  the  harder  work  of  transportation,  points  to  a  liberty  of 
varying  the  strict  letter  of  the  law,  provided  its  spirit  or  principle  was 
ail  I  it-red  to.  See  above,  p.  179. 

3  Ezra  iii.  8  ;  cf.  1  Chron.  xxiii.  24,  27. 

4  Num.  xviii.  21-20.  8  Ezra  ii. ;  viii.  15  IF. 
•  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  167.  7  Neh.  x.  39  ;  xiii.  5. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     299 

Solomon's  servants,  singing-men,  and  singing- women l — of 
which,  curiously  enough,  the  law,  supposed  to  be  drawn  up 
specially  for  this  community,  knows  nothing.1  How  is  this 
to  be  rendered  natural  or  conceivable  on  the  critical 
assumption  of  the  date  of  the  Code  ? 3 

III.  THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  SILENCE  IN  ITS  BEARINGS 
ON  THE  CODE 

We  pass  now  from  these  initial  incredibilities  to  the 
examination  of  the  positive  foundations  of  the  critical 
theory;  and  here,  if  we  mistake  not,  the  impression  pro- 
duced by  the  above  considerations  will  be  more  than  con- 
firmed. The  argument  for  the  exilian  or  post-exilian  dating 
of  the  Priestly  Code  may  be  said  to  have  two  main  branches : 
(1)  the  alleged  silence  of  pre-exilian  history  and  literature 
as  to  the  peculiar  institutions  of  the  Code;  and  (2)  the 
alleged  incompatibility  of  the  sanctuary  and  ritual  arrange- 
ments of  the  pre-exilic  time — mirrored  to  us  in  the  history, 
the  prophets,  and  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy — with  the 
Levitical  regulations.  We  shall  under  the  present  head 
consider  the  general  value  of  this  argument  from  silence ; 
we  shall  then  inquire  whether  the  silence  regarding  the 
laws  and  institutions  of  the  Priests'  Code  is  as  unbroken  as 
is  alleged;  finally,  we  shall  endeavour  to  show  that  the 
critical  theory  itself  breaks  down  in  its  attempt  to  explain 
these  institutions — this  with  special  reference  to  the 
Ezekiel  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  distinction  of  priests  and 
Levites.  The  "  incompatibility "  argument  has  already 
been  in  considerable  part  anticipated,  but  will  be  touched 
upon  as  far  as  necessary. 

The  argument  from  mere  silence  then,  to  begin  with 
that,  is  proverbially  precarious ;  in  a  case  like  the  present 
it  is  peculiarly  so.  It  is  easy  to  understand  why  a  ritual 
law,  which,  all  down,  must  have  been  largely  an  affair  of  the 

1  Ezra  ii.  41,  55,  58,  65,  70.  The  members  of  some  of  these  guilds  were 
probably  Levitical  (1  Clirou.  xxiii.  ;  cf.  Delitzscb,  Zritxhrift,  1880,  p.  287), 
though  the  name  "Levite"  was  specially  appropriated  to  those  directly 
ministering  to  the  priests.  This  would  increase  somewhat  the  proportion 
of  returning  Ijevites. 

1  DeliUsdi,  Dillinann  (Xum.-Joa.  p.  671),  llaudissin  ("  Priests  and 
Levites"  in  Did.  qf  Bible,  iv.  p  88),  etc.,  urge  this  point. 

*  For  additional  instances  of  unsuitability,  cf.  kittel,  UitL  of  Utbi.  i. 
p.  106. 


300       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

priests,  should  not  frequently  obtrude  itself  upon  the  view : 
when  it  does,  as  in  the  Books  of  Chronicles,  it  is  set  down  as 
a  mark  of  untrustworthiness.  Particularly,  the  fact  that 
the  Levitical  laws  are,  in  their  original  form,  adapted  to  a 
tabernacle,  and  to  wilderness  conditions,  precludes  the 
possibility  of  much  reference  to  them  in  that  form,  after  the 
people  were  settled  in  Canaan,  and  after  a  temple  had  been 
built.  Assuming  the  sanctuary  and  sacrificial  ordinances  of 
the  Code  to  have  always  been  in  the  most  perfect  opera- 
tion,— and  it  is  certain  that  in  many  periods  they  were 
not, — it  would  still  be  unreasonable  to  expect  that  they 
should  be  constantly  thrusting  their  heads  into  the  story, 
and  foolish  to  argue  that,  because  they  did  not,  therefore 
they  had  no  existence.  We  take,  however,  broader  ground, 
and  propose  to  show,  with  the  help  of  the  critics  them- 
selves, that,  notwithstanding  the  silence,  a  large  part  of 
the  Code  may  have  been,  and  indeed  actually  was,  in 
operation. 

1.  On  the  showing  of  the  Wellhausen  theory  itself,  it  is 
not  difficult  to  establish  that  the  argument  from  mere 
silence  is  far  from  conclusive.  We  fall  back  here  on  the 
admission  freely  made  that  everything  in  the  Priestly  Code 
is  not  new.  It  is  allowed,  on  the  contrary,  that  materially 
a  great  part  of  the  Levitical  legislation  must  have  been  in 
existence  before  the  exile.  Especially,  as  before  in  the  case 
of  Deuteronomy,  when  the  object  is  to  free  the  hypothesis 
from  the  aspect  of  fraud,  remarkable  concessions  on  this 
point  are  frequently  made.  If,  at  one  time,  we  are  told  by 
Dr.  Driver  that  "  the  pre-exilic  period  shows  no  indications 
of  the  legislation  of  P  as  being  in  operation,"  *  at  another 
time  we  are  assured  that  "  in  its  main  stock,  the  legislation 
of  P  was  not  (as  the  critical  view  of  it  is  sometimes 
represented  by  its  opponents  as  teaching)  '  manufactured ' 
by  the  priests  during  the  exile ;  it  is  based  upon  pre- 
existing temple  usage." 2  We  do  not  defend  the  consistency  of 

1  Introd.  p.  136. 

-  Ibid.  p.  143.  See  below,  p.  312.  Similarly  the  quotations  from  Kuenen 
ami  Wellhausen  on  pp.  291-92  above,  may  be  compared  with  the  following 
from  Kuenen:  "The  decrees  of  the  priestly  law  were  not  made  and 
invented  during  or  after  the  exile,  but  drawn  up.  Prior  to  the  exile,  the 
priests  had  already  delivered  verbally  what— with  the  modifications  that 
had  become  necessary  in  the  meantime — they  afterwards  committed  to 
writing." — Rel.  of  Israel,  ii.  p.  96.  "  I  have  already  drawn  attention  to  the 
probability  that  disconnected  priestly  ordinances  or  torahs  were  in  circula- 


THE  PRIESTLY  \VRITIN(i.     I.  THE  CODE     301 

these  statements ;  the  one  is,  in  fact,  as  \vc  .si  mil  immediately 
see,  destructive  of  the  other.  The  tendency  in  writers  of 
this  school  is,  in  reality,  to  a  kind  of  sec-saw  between  these 
two  positions;  the  one  that  the  Priestly  Code  was  in  the 
main  a  simple  "codification"  of  pre-exilic  usage — a  com- 
paratively innocent  hypothesis;  and  the  other  that  the 
characteristic  institutions  of  the  Priestly  Code — ark, 
tabernacle,  Aaronic  priests,  Levites,  tithes,  Levitical  cities, 
sin-offerings,  day  of  atonement,"  etc.,  were,  one  and  all,  the 
free  creation  of  the  exilic  period — were  then,  despite  Dr. 
Driver's  disclaimer, "  manufactured  " l — and  were  absolutely 
unknown  earlier.  If  the  latter  proposition  cannot  be 
maintained,  the  whole  hypothesis  goes  to  earth.  Here 
again  we  are  entitled  to  say  that  the  critics  must  really 
make  their  choice.  They  cannot  well  be  allowed  at  one 
time  to  employ  arguments  which  are  of  no  force  unless  on 
the  assumption  that  the  Levitical  law  is,  as  a  whole,  in 
matter  as  well  as  in  form,  //•"•:  and  at  another,  to  use 
arguments  based  on  the  contention  that  the  bulk  of  the 
legislation  is,  in  practice,  vld.~ 

Let  us,  however,  accept,  as  we  are  glad  to  do,  the  state- 
ment that "  the  main  stock  "  of  the  legislation  of  P  is  "  based 
upon  pre-existing  temple  usage,"  and  see  what  follows.  The 
observance  of  this  "main  stock"  before  the  exile  either 
appears  in  the  history,  or  it  does  not  If  it  does  not,  what 
becomes  of  the  argument  from  silence  against  the  other 
institutions?  If  it  does,  what  becomes  of  Wellhausen's 
statement  that  "no  trace  can  be  found  of  acquaintance 
with  the  Priestly  Code,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  very  clear 
indications  of  ignorance  of  its  contents  ? "  8  It  is  nothing  to 
the  purpose  to  reply,  as  is  commonly  done,  that  before  the 
exile  there  was  indeed  praxis  —  usage  —  but  no  written 

tion  before  the  exile,  even  though  a  system  of  priestly  legislation  wan 
wanting  at  that  time  "  (p.  192). 

1  We  may  take  in  illustration  the  law  of  the  pnssover  in  Exodus, 
referred  to  further  below,  pp.  320-21.  Graf  treats  Ex.  xiL  1-28  as  a  pure 
creation  of  the  time  of  the  exile,  and  deduces  from  the  fact  of  its  agreement 
with  the  priestly  and  sacrificial  laws  of  Leviticus,  that  these  must  be 
exilian  or  post-exilian  also  (Gfschicht.  Etichtr,  pp.  34-86).  Wellhausen'a 
view  is  that  the  law  lias  undergone  a  transformation  which  inverts  tlie 
relation  of  cause  and  effect.  It  was  the  Israelitish  custom  of  offering  the 
firstlings  which  gave  rise  to  the  story  of  the  slaying  of  the  firstborn  iu 
Egypt,  not  vice  vena.—  Hut.  of  Israel,  pp.  88,  100,  102,  352. 

*  Cf.  Robertson  on  Wellhauscn,  Early  Religion,  etc.,  pp.  393-94. 

»  Hist.  o/Itnul,  p.  59. 


302       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

Priestly  Code,  or  Code  of  ritual  law  attributed  to  Moses.1 
For  (1)  the  very  ground  on  which  the  existence  of  a  written 
Code  is  denied  is  that  there  is  no  proof  of  the  practice  ;  and  (2) 
if  the  practice  is  allowed,  who  is  to  certify  that  a  written 
law,  regulating  the  practice,  was  not  there  ?  Against  the 
existence  of  a  written  law,  we  have  only  Wellhausen's 
dogmatic  dictum,  repeated  by  other  critics,  that,  so  long 
as  the  cultus  lasted,  people  would  not  concern  themselves 
with  reducing  it  to  the  form  of  a  Code.2  It  was  only  when 
it  had  passed  away  that  men  thought  of  reducing  it  to 
writing.  That,  however,  Wellhausen  certainly  cannot  prove, 
and  his  view  is  not  that  of  older  and  of  a  good  many 
recent  scholars.8  Nor  has  it  probability  in  itself.  Are 
written  Codes — especially  in  the  light  of  modern  knowledge 
— so  entirely  unknown  to  antiquity  as  to  warrant  anyone  in 
saying  a  priori  that,  even  where  an  elaborate  ritual  is 
acknowledged  to  be  in  operation,  a  Code  regulating  it 
cannot  have  existed  ? 4 

2.  There  is  an  admitted  "pre-existing  temple  usage," 
constituting  "  the  main  stock  "  of  the  priestly  law ;  reflection 
may  next  convince  us  that  this  "pre-existing  usage  must 
have  covered  a  much  larger  part  of  the  Levitical  Code  than 
is  commonly  realised.  There  existed  at  least  a  splendid 
temple,  with  outer  and  inner  divisions;  a  sacred  ark; 
temple  furniture  and  utensils;  a  hereditary  priesthood. 
The  priests  would  have  their  sacred  vestments,  prescribed 
duties,  ritual  lore,  their  technique  in  the  manipulation  of 
the  different  kinds  of  sacrifices,  their  recognised  rules  for 
the  discernment  and  treatment  of  leprosy,  their  rules  for 
ceremonial  purification,  their  calendar  of  sacred  festivals, 
etc.  These  things  existed ;  assume  the  laws  relating  to  them 

1  Ibid. ;  cf.  Euenen,  as  above,  p.  96.  2  Ibid. 

8  Cf.  Bleck,  Introd.  i.  pp.  221  ff. ;  Dillmann,  Exod.-Lev.  Pref.  p.  viii 
(see  above,  p.  160)  ;  p.  386. 

4  Analogy  and  discovery  furnish  strong  grounds  for  believing  that  Israel 
would  have  a  written  law.  Kittel  says  on  this  point :  ' '  Israel  came  out  of, 
and  always  continued  to  be  connected  with,  a  country  where  external 
prescriptions  and  rules  played  their  part  in  all  ages.  As  in  Egypt,  so  in 
Babylonia  and  Assyria,  rules  were  laid  down  for  sacrificial  worship  at  an 
early  period.  The  Marseilles  Table  of  Offerings  has  brought  the  same  fact  to 
light  as  regards  the  Phoenicians.  Is  it  to  be  believed  that  with  all  this 
scrupulosity  on  the  part  of  the  surrounding  priesthoods,  a  primitive 
informalism,  of  which  there  is  no  other  example,  prevailed  in  Israel  alone 
until  the  days  of  the  restoration  ? " — Hist,  of  ffebs.  i.  p.  113.  Cf.  Dillmann, 
Nv,n.-Jo9.  p.  647. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WHITING.     I.  THE  CODE     303 

to  be  written  down,  what  ground  have  we  for  supposing  that 
they  would  have  differed  greatly  from  the  laws  preserved  to 
us  in  Leviticus  and  Numbers  ?  Yet  how  little  of  all  this 
obtrudes  itself  in  the  history  ?  Nothing,  we  have  again  to 
point  out,  is  gained  by  the  substitution  of  praxis  for  written 
law ;  for  it  is  not  the  written  law,  usually,  but  the  practice, 
that  history  takes  cognisance  of,  and,  if  silence  in  the  history 
is  compatible  with  the  practice,  it  must  also  be  compatible 
with  the  existence  of  any  Code  that  regulates  it.  How  far 
this  reaches  will  appear  more  clearly  if  we  look  at  specific 
instances. 

Wellhausen  speaks  repeatedly  of  the  splendour  and 
elaboration  of  the  pre-exilic  cultus.  There  was  a  cult  us 
"  carried  on,"  he  tells  us,  "  with  the  utmost  zeal  and 
splendour  "  * — "  splendid  sacrifices,  presumably  offered  with 
all  the  rules  of  priestly  skill."  2  "  Elaborate  ritual  may  have 
existed  in  the  great  sanctuaries  at  a  very  early  period."8 
He  correctly  infers  "  that  Amos  and  Hosea,  presupposing  as 
they  do  a  splendid  cultus  and  great  sanctuaries,  doubtless 
also  knew  of  a  variety  of  festivals."  *  But  he  has  to  add, 
"  they  have  no  occasion  to  mention  any  one  by  name."  To 
the  same  effect  Isaiah  is  quoted :  "  Add  ye  year  to  year,  let 
the  feasts  go  round." 5  But  where  shall  we  look  in  history 
for  any  notice  of  these  feasts  ?  It  is  allowed  that  the  three 
feasts  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  were  observed  from  early 
times;  yet,  says  Wellhausen,  "names  are  nowhere  to  be 
found,  and  in  point  of  fact  it  is  only  the  autumn  festival 
that  is  well  attested,  and  this,  it  would  appear,  as  the  only 
festival,  as  the  feast."  •  Still  the  critic  has  no  doubt  that 
"  even  under  the  older  monarchy  the  previous  festivals  must 
also  have  already  existed  as  well." 7  As  particular  examples, 
let  the  reader  take  his  concordance,  and  note  the  exceeding 
paucity  of  the  allusions  in  the  historical  books  to  such 
institutions  as  the  sabbath,  the  new  moon,  or  even  the  rite 
of  circumcision.  How  easy,  on  the  strength  of  this  silence, 
would  it  be  to  say  in  the  familiar  way:  "Joshua,  Judges, 
the  Books  of  Samuel,  know  nothing  of  the  sabbath!" 
Drop  one  or  two  incidental  references,  which  might  easily 

1  Hi*,  of  Israel,  p.  56.  •  Ibitl.  p.  55. 

•  Ibid.  p.  54.  « Ibid.  r>.  94.  •  Ibid. 

'  Ibid.    It  is  not  the  case,  however,  that  no  other  feasts  are  named.    Sea 
below,  pp.  821-22. 
T  IbvL  p.  96. 


304      DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

not  have  been  there,  and  the  evidence  in  the  history  for  the 
above,  as  for  many  other  institutions,  disappears  altogether. 
Does  it  follow  that  the  sabbath,  or  a  law  of  the  sabbath, 
had  no  existence  ? 

3.  The  test  may  be  applied  in  another  way.  It  is  urged, 
e.g.,  that  there  is  no  clear  reference  in  pre-exilian  literature 
to  the  existence  of  a  class  of  Levites  as  distinct  from  the 
priests.  It  has  already  been  seen  that  this  is  not  altogether 
the  case,1  and,  at  least,  as  pointed  out,  the  Levites  appear 
quite  distinctly  at  the  return,  nearly  a  century  before  the 
Priestly  Code  was  promulgated  by  Ezra.  But  what  of  post- 
exilian  literature?  Apart  from  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and 
the  Books  of  Chronicles,  how  many  references  to  the  Levites 
could  be  gleaned  from  exilian  and  post-exilian  writings  ? 
The  second  Isaiah  (assuming  the  critical  date),  the  prophets 
Haggai,  Zechariah,  Joel  (if  he  be  post-exilian),  Malachi,2  the 
Psalter — declared  to  be  the  song-book  of  the  second  temple 
— all  are  silent,  with  the  possible  exception  of  Ps.  cxxxv.  20. 
The  Priests'  Code  generally  finds  little  reflection  in  the 
Psalter.  Even  in  the  Priestly  Code  itself,  it  is  surprising  to 
discover  how  large  a  part  contains  no  allusions  to  the 
Levites..  In  Leviticus — the  priestly  book  par  excellence — 
with  the  solitary  exception  of  chap.  xxv.  32,  33,  they  are  not 
so  much  as  named.3  Equally  remarkable  is  the  silence  of 
the  New  Testament  on  the  Levites.  One  stray  allusion  in 
the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan;4  one  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel;5  one  in  Acts,  where  Barnabas  is  described  as  a 
Levite8 — that  is  all.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  even, 
has  nothing  to  say  of  them.  Priests  everywhere,  but 
Levites  nowhere.  This,  surely,  is  a  sufficiently  striking 
object-lesson  in  silence.  Yet  it  is  on  the  ground  of  a 
similar  silence  to  this  that  we  are  asked  to  believe  that 
there  was  no  pre-exilian  observance  of  the  day  of  atone- 
ment.7 Doubtless  there  is  no  mention  in  the  history  of  this 
yearly  day  of  expiation — any  more  than  there  is  of  the 

1  See  above,  pp.  163,  189. 

2  The  Levites  in  Malachi  are  the  priests. 

8  Of.  Kittel,  Hist,  of  Hehs.  i.  pp.  120-21.  Kittel  shows  tliat  in  large  parts 
of  the  Priestly  Code  "there  is  no  contrast  between  priests  and  Levites." 

4  Luke  x.  32.  *  John  i.  19.  6  Acts  iv.  36. 

7  We  are  aware  that  it  is  argued  that  its  observance  is  on  certain  occasions 
jrreclitded  by  the  narrative.  But  see  Delitzsch's  article,  Luthardt's  Zeitschrift. 
1880,  pp.  173  ff. 


THE  PRIESTLY   WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     305 


year,1  the  year  of  jubilee,*  and  many  other 
institutions  which  we  have  good  reason  to  believe  were 
known,  even  if  they  were  not  always  faithfully  observed.8 
But  the  argument  from  silence  in  the  case  of  the  day  of 
atonement  proves  too  much  ;  for,  as  it  happens,  jt?os£-exilian 
literature  is  as  silent  about  it  as  ^re-exilian.  Important 
solemnity  as  it  was,  it  is  not  mentioned  by  Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
Chronicles,-t>r  any  of  the  post-exilian  prophets.  The  first 
notice  of  its  observance  is  in  Josephus,  who  tells  us  that,  in 
27  B.C.,  Herod  took  Jerusalem  on  that  day,  as  Pompey  had 
done  twenty-seven  years  before.4  The  Gospels  and  Acts 
contain  no  reference  to  the  day  of  atonement;  yet  we 
know  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  that  it  was  observed, 
and  that  its  rites  were  familiar.6 

IV.  PROOF  OF  EAKLIER  EXISTENCE  OF  PRIESTLY 
LEGISLATION 

Thus    far    we    have   proceeded    on    the    critics'    own 
assumption  of  the  silence  in   pre-exilian   times   regarding 
the   laws  and  institutions  of  the  Priestly  Code.     But  was  - 
the  silence  really  as  unbroken  as  is  alleged  ?    We  shall  now 
endeavour  to  show  that  it  was  not.     The  opposite  can  onlyi 
be  maintained  by  the  process  of  circular  reasoning  which  \ 
explains  away   every   testimony   to   the   contrary   by  the  1 
assumption  of  late  date  or  interpolation  of  the  notice,  or  by  ' 
the  convenient  distinction  between  Code  and  usage.    We 
go  on   the  contrary  principle  that  praxis,  as  a  rule,  is  a 
testimony  in  favour  of  Code  ;  but  we  hope  to  do  something 
to  prove  the  presence  of  Code  also. 

In  an  earlier  chapter  we  sought  to  establish  the  existence 
in  pre-exilic  times  of  many  of  the  characteristic  institutions 

1  Ex.  zxiiL  10  ;  Lev.  xxv.  2  fT.  ;  xxri.  34,  85.  The  first  mention  of  the 
sabbatical  year  is  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  (1  Mace.  vi.  53). 

1  Lev.  xxv.  Cf.  Isa.  Ixi.  1,  2.  Kuenen  admits  that  Ezekiel  knew  the 
jubilee  year  (Rel.  of  Israel,  ii.  p.  191). 

*  The  Wellhausen  school  deny  the  observance,  bat  without  good  reason 
(cf.  Dillmann  on  Lev.  xxv.  7,  p.  608). 

4  Antlq.  xiv.  16.  4. 

'  Heb.  ix.  7  ff.  The  list  of  silences  might  easily  be  extended.  The 
feast  of  weeks,  e.g.,  is  not  mentioned  by  Ezekiel,  who  speaks  of  the 
passover  and  the  feast  of  tabernacles.  It  is  alluded  to  only  once  in  the 
whole  history  before  the  exile  (1  Kinga  ix.  25  ;  2  Chron.  viii.  13).  Neither 
does  Ezekiel  allude  to  the  evening  sacrifice. 


306       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

of   the  Levitical   Code,  e.g.,  the  ark,  the   tabernacle,  the 
Aaronic  priesthood,  the  high   priest,  etc.1     It  adds  to  the 
weight  of   the  argument  that  in  many  instances   we  are 
indebted  to  quite  incidental  allusions  for  a  knowledge  of 
facts  and  observances  whose  existence  might  not  otherwise 
have  been  suspected.     It  is,  e.g.,  only  by  accident  that  we 
came  on  the  notice  of  "the  shewbread"  in  the  sanctuary 
at  Nob  in  the  reign  of  Saul.2     Again,  from  1  Sam.  i.,  ii.,  we 
might  hastily  conclude  that  there  were  at  Shiloh  no  priests 
but  Eli  and  his  two  sons ;  as  from  chap.  xxi.  we  might  infer 
that  there  was  at  Nob  only  the  single  priest  Ahimelech.     Yet 
Saul's  massacre  after  David's  flight  discovers  to  us  the  pres- 
ence at  Nob  of  eighty-five  priests  that  wore  a  linen  ephod.3 
If  it  be  replied  that  the  references  to  ark,  tabernacle,  priest- 
hood, shewbread,  and  the  like,  do  not  prove  the  existence 
of  the  detailed  representations  of  the  Priestly  Code,4  this 
may  be   granted,  and   is  only  to   be  expected.     But  they 
show  at  least  that  these  things  were  there  to  be  legislated 
for,  and  annul   the  presumption  against  laws  which  have 
this  for  their  object.     It  is  a  curious  state  of  mind  that  can 
see  a   propriety  in   the   codification    of    laws,  e.g.,  about 
parapets  and  fringes,5  but  supposes  that  everything  about 
sanctuary   and    sacrifice    was    left    to    drift    on    without 
authoritative  regulation.     It  is  now  necessary,  however,  to 
come  to  closer  quarters,  and  to  ask  whether  there  is  any 
direct  evidence  of  the  existence  of  priestly  laws  in  written 
form  in  pre-exilian  times. 

1.  We  turn  first  to  the  Book  of  Ezekiel,  and  specially 
to  chaps,  xl.— xlviii.,  which  Wellhausen  says  have  been  not 
incorrectly  called  "  the  key  of  the  Old  Testament," 6  and 
between  which  and  the  Priestly  Code,  at  any  rate,  it  is 

1  Cf.  above,  Chap.  VI.  3  1  Sam.  xxi. 

8  1  Sam.  xxii.  18.  Wellhausen  allows  that  there  must  have  been  a 
considerable  establishment  at  Shiloh.  "The  temple  of  Shiloh,"  he  says, 
"  the  priesthood  of  which  we  find  officiating  at  Nob  a  little  later."  "The 
otfice  is  hereditary,  and  the  priesthood  already  very  numerous." — Hist,  of 
Israel,  pp.  19,  128. 

*  Thus  Dr.  Driver,  Introd.  p.  142.  See  above,  p.  171.  The  regulations 
for  such  an  establishment  must  have  been  pretty  detailed,  if  they  existed 
at  all. 

8  Deut  xxii.  8,  12. 

6  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  421.  (Cf.  p.  25  above.)  Smend  also  says  :  "  The 
decisive  importance  of  this  section  for  the  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  was 
first  recognised  by  George  and  Vatke.  It  has  been  rightly  called  the  key 
oi  the  Old  Testament.  In  fact  it  is  only  intelligible  as  an  intermediate 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     L  1'HE  CODE     307 

allowed  on  all  sides  that  there  exists  a  close  relation.1 
What  is  the  nature  of  that  relation  ?  Is  it,  as  the  world 
has  till  recently  believed,  the  Levitical  Code,  with  which 
as  a  priest  he  was  necessarily  familiar,  which  furnished 
Ezekiel  with  suggestion  and  guidance  in  the  framing  of  his 
sketch  of  a  new  theocracy,  in  which  older  institutions  are 
freely  remodelled  and  changed?*  Or  is  it,  as  the  newer 
critics  allege,  that  no  written  priestly  laws  as  yet  existed, 
and  that  Ezekiel's  sketch  was  the  first  rough  draft — 
"  programme " — on  the  basis  of  which  exilian  scribes 
afterwards  worked  to  produce  their  so-called  Mosaic  Code.3 
The  latter  view  is  necessary  to  the  Wellhausen  hypothesis,4 
yet  it  is  one  against  which  a  powerful  note  of  dissent  is 
raised  by  an  influential  company  of  scholars,  many  of  them 
well-nigh  as  "  advanced "  as  Wellhausen  himself.6  It  is 
pointed  out,  surely  with  justice,  that  the  vision  of  Ezekiel 
is  only  conceivable  as  the  product  of  a  mind  saturated  with 
the  knowledge  of  temple  law  and  ritual ;  that  the  parallels 
with  the  Priestly  Code  are  not  confined  to  chapa  xL-xlviiL, 
but  go  through  the  whole  book;*  that  much  is  simply j 
alluded  to,  or  left  to  be  understood,  which  only  the  Priestly 
Code  can  explain;7  above  all,  that  the  scheme  of  the 
Levitical  Code  deviates  so  widely  in  conception  and  detail 
from  that  of  Ezekiel  as  to  render  it  unthinkable  that  its 

link  between  Deuteronomy  and  the  Priestly  Code,  and  it  thence  follows 
that  the  latter  is  exilian  or  post-exilian." — £zechiel,  p.  312. 

1  "  On  one  point,"  says  Baudissin,  "  there  can  be  no  doubt,  namely  this, 
that  the  affinity  between  the  law  of  Ezekiel  and  the  Priests'  Code  is  so 
great  that  it  can  be  explained  only  by  the  dependence  of  one  of  these  upon 
the  other."— Did.  of  Bible,  iv%  p.  86. 

1  It  seems  obvious  that  the  vision  is  a  work  of  prophetic  imagination, 
and  is  not  intended  to  be  taken  as  a  literal  programme  for  future  realisation. 
One  has  only  to  read  the  vision  of  the  waters,  and  the  direction  for  the 
division  of  the  land  in  chap,  xlvii.  to  see  that  they  belong  to  the  region  of 
the  ideal — not  of  fact. 

1  Cf.  Kuenen,  Rel.  of  Israel,  ii.  p.  118. 

4  Oue  of  the  theses  on  which,  from  1833,  Ecuss  based  his  lectures  was  this : 
"  Ezekiel  is  earlier  than  the  redaction  of  the  ritual  code,  and  of  the  laws, 
which  definitely  organised  the  hierarchy."  (Cf.  Wellhausen,  Hist.  p.  4.) 
See  above,  p.  200.  Since  the  time  of  Graf,  Delitzsch  says,  "the  Book  of 
Ezekiel  has  become  the  Archimedean  point  of  the  Pentateuchal  criticism." 
— Luthardt's  ZeiUehrtfl,  1880,  p.  279. 

•  Among  critics  of  the  theory  may  be  mentioned   Delitzach,  Biehm, 
Dillmann,  Schroder,  Noldcke,  Baudissin,  Kittel,  Oettli,  etc. 

•  See  below,  pp.  808-9. 

1  E.g.,  the  sin-  and  trespass-offerings,  chaps,  xl.  39;  xliv.  29.  See 
Note  C  on  Ezekiel  aud  Earlier  Law  and  Observance. 


308       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

authors  took  the  temple-vision  of  Ezekiel  as  a  pattern. 
How,  indeed,  if  they  viewed  the  vision  of  Ezekiel  as  a 
prophetic  revelation,  should  they  presume  to  ignore  or 
contradict  it  so  directly  as  they  do  ?  *  We  are  aware  that 
the  objection  is  retorted :  how  should  Ezekiel  presume  to 
alter  a  divinely-given  earlier  Code  ? 2  But  the  cases  are 
quite  different.  Ezekiel  is  not  putting  forward  a  code  in 
the  name  of  Moses.  He  is  a  prophetic  man,  avowedly 
legislating  in  the  Spirit  for  a  transformed  land  and  a 
transformed  people  in  the  future.  Not  only,  however,  does 
the  prophesying  of  Ezekiel  presuppose  an  older  law,  but  the 
references  with  which  his  pages  are  filled  to  "  statutes  and 
judgments,"  or  "ordinances"  of  God,8  which  the  people  had 
transgressed  (in  their  "abominations"  at  the  sanctuary 
among  other  things),  show  explicitly  that  he  had  such  laws 
habitually  before  him. 

2.  But  the  subject  admits  of  being  brought  to  a  nearer 

determination.     There  is  at  least  one  important  section  of 

the  Priestly  Code  which,  it  is  allowed,  stands  in  the  closest 

possible   connection    with    Ezekiel.     We    refer    to    "that 

t  peculiar  little  collection  of  laws,"  as  Wellhausen  calls  it,4 

\embraced    in    Lev.   xvii.-xxvi.   (with,  according  to  most, 

extensive   fragments    elsewhere),   which    modern    writers, 

following     Klostermann,    usually    name     "The     Law     o( 

Holiness."5     The  resemblances  with  Ezekiel  here,  particu- 

1  "It  is,"  says  Delitzsch,  "incomprehensible  how  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
rould  dare  to  publish  a  law-book  whose  ordinances  contradict  those  of 
Kzekiel  on  all  sides,  and  which  still,  in  matter  and  form,  shows  itself  well 
acquainted  with  the  latter." — Zeitschrift,  p.  281.  The  systematic  character 
of  Ezekiel's  law,  as  compared  with  the  unsystematic  character  of  the 
Levitical  Code,  shows  that  it  is  not  the  latter  which  is  dependent  on  the 
1'ormer,  but  vice  versa. 

*  Thus  Graf,  Kautzsch,  etc.  Professor  Robertson  remarks  :  "  Well,  on  the 
critical  hypothesis,  the  Deuteronomic  law  at  least  existed  as  authoritative, 
and  yet  Ezekiel  deviates  from  it." — Early  Religion,  pp.  432-33.  Dr.  A.  B. 
Davidson  points  out :  "  Inferences  from  comparison  of  Ezekiel  with  the 
TAW  have  to  he  drawn  with  caution,  for  it  is  evident  that  the  prophet 
handles  with  freedom  institutions  certainly  older  than  his  own  time." — 
Ezekiel,  Introd.  p.  liii. 

3  Ezek.  v.  6  ;  xi.  12,  and  jjassim. 

4  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  51  (cf.  pp.  75,  86,  376,  384)- 

6  Klostermann  gave  it  this  name  in  1877  in  a  searching  article  since 
reprinted  in  his  Der  Pentateuch,  pp.  368  ff.  "The  principle,"  says  Dr. 
Driver,  "which  determines  most  conspicuously  the  character  of  the  entire 
section  is  that  of  holiness — partly  ceremonial,  partly  moral — as  a  quality 
distinguishing  Israel,  demanded  of  Israel  by  Jehovah." — Introd.  p.  48. 
Characteristic  of  it  is  the  phrase  "I  am  Jehovah." 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     309 

larly  in  -Lev.  xxvi.,1  are  so  numerous  and  striking  that  no 
one  doubts  the  reality  of  some  kind  of  dependence,  hut 
opinions  have  widely  differed  in  critical  quarters  as  to  the 
nature  of  that  dependence.  At  first  it  was  confidently 
maintained,  as  by  Graf,  Kayser,  Colenso  (in  part),  etc.,  that 
Ezekiel  himself  must  be  the  author  of  these  sections. 
"  Amidst  all  the  peculiarities,"  wrote  Graf, "  by  which  these 
passages,  and  especially  chap,  xxvi.,  are  distinguished  from 
the  other  portions  of  the  Pentateuch,  there  is  exhibited  so 
strange  an  agreement  in  thought  and  expression  with 
Ezekiel,  that  this  cannot  be  accidental,  nor  can  be  explained 
by  reference  to  the  sameness  of  the  circle  within  which 
Ezekiel  and  the  writer  worked,  but  leads  necessarily  to  the 
assumption  that  Ezekiel  himself  was  the  writer."  2  Subse- 
quently, when  this  theory  was  effectually  disproved,  on  the 
basis  of  a  wider  induction,  by  Klostermann,  Noldeke,  and 
Kuenen,  the  view  was  adopted  that  the  writer  was  some 
one  acquainted  with  Ezekiel,  who,  in  Kuenen's  words, 
"  imitated  him,  and  worked  on  in  his  spirit." s  This, 
however,  is  too  evidently  a  makeshift,  and  does  violence 
also  to  all  probability ;  for  how  should  an  "  imitator "  be 
supposed  to  have  picked  out  just  these  isolated  expressions 
of  Ezekiel,  and  inserted  them  into  a  Code  presenting 
throughout  such  marked  peculiarities?  "That  the  Law  of 
Holiness  is  formed  after  the  model  of  Ezekiel's  speech,"  says 
Delitzsch,  "  is,  to  unprejudiced  literary  criticism,  a  sheer 
impossibility."4  The  only  view  which  simply  and  naturally 
meets  the  case  is  that  favoured  also  by  Dr.  Driver6 — viz.,  ( 
that  Hit  prophet  was  acquainted  with  and  used  the  law  inj 
question,  which,  therefore,  is  older  than  himself. 

1  For  lists  of  parallels  cf.   Colenso,  Pent.  Pt.   vi.   pp.  6-10  ;   Driver, 
Inirod.  p.  147  ;  Cariwuter,  Ilex.  i.  pp.  147-48,  etc. 

*  Qtsehicht.  Biieher,  p.  81  ;  cf.  Colenso,  as  above,  chaps.  L,  ii. 

*  Hex.  p.  276.     See  below,  p.  839. 

4  Luthanit's  Ztitschrift,  1880,  p.  619. 

*  Dr.    Driver  saya :    "  His  [Lzekiel's]  book  appenra  to  contain    clear 
Miilence  that    he   was  acquainted   with    the   Law   of    Holiness.  ...  In 
•aih  instance  he  expresses  himself  in  terms  agreeing  with   the   Law  of 
Holiness  in  such  a  manner  as  only  to  be  reasonably  explained  by  the 
supposition  that  it  formed  a  body  of  precepts  with  which  lie  was  familiar, 
and  which  he  regarded  as  an  authoritative  batis  of  moral  and  religions  life." 
—Introd.  pp.  145-46  ;  cf.  p.  149  :  "  It  may  further  be  taken  for  granted  that 
the  laws  of  H — at  least  the  principal  and  moat  characteristic  laws — are  prior 
to  Ezekiel."     So  Ryle,  Canon,  pp.  7'2  IF.     Dillmnnn  says  :  "  Ezekiel  lives  and 
moves  in  the  precepts  of  the  Law  of  Holiness." — A'um.-Jos.  p.  646. 


310      DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

N  This  yields  at  once  certain  important  conclusions.  It 
demonstrates,  in  the  first  place,  the  fallacy  of  the  statement 
that  no  priestly  written  law  existed  before  the  exile — for 
here  is  at  least  one  important  Code  of  priestly  law;  and, 
second,  it  opens  up  large  vistas  of  possibility  as  to  the 
extent  of  this  written  law,  and  casts  valuable  light  on 
the-  pre-exilian  existence  of  many  disputed  institutions. 
Critical  ingenuity,  indeed,  is  amply  equal  to  the  fresh 
task  of  dissecting  the  Code  it  has  discovered  —  of  dis- 
tinguishing in  it  a  P1  and  P2,  even  an  H1,  H2,  H3,  and  of 
relegating  to  later  hands  everything  which  it  thinks  un- 
suitable.1 Thus  Baentsch,  a  recent  writer,  distinguishes 
between  chaps,  xviii.-xx.  (H1)  as  post-Deuteronomic,  but 
prior  to  Ezekiel,  and  the  group  later  than  Ezekiel,  chaps, 
xxi-xxii.  (H2),  and  finally  chaps,  xvii.  and  xxvi.  (H8).2 
On  the  whole,  however,  the  tendency  of  critical  opinion 
has  been  to  enlarge  the  scope  of  this  "Law  of  Holiness" 
rather  than  to  contract  it3 — the  expansion,  when  the  assump- 
tion of  late  date  gives  the  critic  a  free  hand,  assuming 
sometimes  quite  remarkable  proportions.4  Even  if  some 
degree  of  redaction  is  admitted,  it  remains  certain  that 
in  these  chapters  of  Leviticus  with  which  Ezekiel  shows 
himself  so  closely  in  rapport,  laws  are  embedded  relating 
to  the  most  contested  points  in  Israel's  religion.  This 
Code  is,  in  fact,  in  a  very  real  sense,  the  quintessence  of 
Levitical  law.  We  find  in  it,  to  adduce  only  main  instances, 

1  Kuenen  lays  down  somewhat  naively  the  following  canon  for  identifying 
the  fragments  of  P1 :  "We  may  assign  to  P1  with  high- probability  (a)  the 
sections  which  obviously  are  not  a  part  of  P2,  with  its  later  amplifications," 
etc.—  Hex.  p.  277. 

3  Das  Hettigkeitsgesetz,  1893. 

3  With,  again,  the  usual  wide  divergence.     "Thus,"  says   Carpenter, 
"Driver  ascribes  to  this  document  Ex.  vi.   6-8;  xii.  12;  xxxi.  13-14; 
Lev.  x.  9a,  10  ;  xi.  44  ;  Num.  xv.  37-41,  while  Addis  allows  only  Lev.  xi. 
43-45,  and  Num.  xv.  37-41." — Hex.  i.  p.  145      See  next  note. 

4  The  following  from  Carpenter  will  illustrate:  "  Other  scholars,  again, 
like  Wurster,  Cornill,  WUdeboer,  further  propose  to  include  within  it  a 
considerable  group  of  Levitical  laws  more  or  less  cognate  in  subject  and 
style.  .  .  .  Are  all  these  [passages  included  by  Driver]  to  be  regarded  as 
relics  of  Ph  I    In  that  case  it  must  have  contained  historical  as  well  as 
legislative  matter  on  an  extensive  scale.     It  must  have  related  the  commis- 
sion to  Moses,  the  death  of  the  firstborn,  the  establishment  of  the  dwelling, 
and  the  dedication  of  the  Levites  to  Yahweh's  service.     Even  if  the  latter 
]>assages  be  denied  to  Ph,  the  implications  of  Ex.  vi.  6-8  suggest  that  the 
document  to  which  it  belonged  comprised  an  account  of  the  Exodus,  the 
great  religious  institutions,  and  the  settlement  in  the  land  promised  to  the 
forefathers,"  etc. — Hex.  p.  145.     The  vista,  indeed,  is  widening  ! 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     311 

t*r*" 

the  Aaronic  priesthood,1  the  higli  priest,8  sin-  and  trespass- 

ofleriiigs,8  the  day  of  atonement,4  the  three  historical 
feasts,6  the  sabbatic  year,'  the  year  of  jubilee,7  the  Levitical 
cities,8  etc.  We  shall  think  twice,  and  require  strong 
evidence,  before  surrendering  all  this,  at  the  bidding  of 
critical  theory,  to  post-exilian  hands. 

3.  Accepting  it  as  established  that  the  Law  of  Holiness, 
and  other  Levitical  laws,  were  known  to  Ezekiel,  we  may 
now  carry  the  argument  a  considerable  way  higher,  with 
fresh  confirmation  of  the  result  already  reached.  It  is 
essential  to  the  Wellhausen  hypothesis  to  prove  that  the 
Levitical  Code  is  posterior  to  Ezekiel;  it  is  still  morei 
indispensable  for  its  purpose  to  show  that  it  is  later  than 
Deuteronomy.  But  is  this  really  so  ?  The  assertion  is,  no 
doubt,  continually  made ;  but  on  this  point,  once  more,  the 
critical  camp  is  keenly  divided,  and  there  appears  the 
clearest  evidence  that,  as  the  older  scholars  all  but 
unanimously  maintained,  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  is 
familiar  with,  and  in  his  legislation  actually  embodies  or 
alludes  to,  many  provisions  of  the  Levitical  Code.  Here 
again  Dr.  Driver  will  be  our  witness,  though  this  time, 
perhaps,  against  his  own  intention.  At  first  sight,  indeed, 
this  careful  scholar  seems  altogether  against  us.  "The 
pre-exilic  period,"  he  tells  us,  "  shows  no  indications  of  the 
legislation  of  P  being  in  operation.  .  .  .  Nor  is  the  legis- 
lation of  P  presupposed  in  Deuteronomy."*  Ere  long, 
however,  we  discover  that  here,  also,  after  the  critical 
fashion,  we  have  to  distinguish  two  Dr.  Drivers  (Dr.1  and 
Dr.5,  shall  we  say?) — a  first,  who  contends  unqualifiedly 
that  the  pre-exilic  period  "shows  no  indications  of  the 
legislation  of  P,"  and  a  second,  who  admits  that  it  is 
only  "  the  completed  Priests'  Code "  that  is  unknown  before 
the  exile,  and  that  "  the  contradiction  of  the  pre-exilic 
literature  does  not  extend  to  the  whole  of  the  Priests' 
Code  indiscriminately."10  Citation  is  made  of  Deut  xiv. 

1  Lev.  xvii  2 ;  xxi.  1,  17,  21,  etc.  »  Chap.  xxi.  10-15. 

'  Chaps,  xix.  21,  22  ;  xxiii.  19.  «  Chaps,  xxiii.  27-32  ;  xxv.  9. 

8  Chap,  xxiii.         •  Cliap.  xxv.  2-7.         '  Chap.  xxv.  8  fl'. 

*  Chap.  xxv.  32,  83.     The  notice  of  the  cities  is  the  more  valuable  that 
it  comes  ID  incidentally  in  connection  with  a  different  subject. 

•  Introd.  pp.  136,  137.     Cf.  above,  p.  300. 

10  Ibid.  p.  142  (italics  are  Dr.  D.'s).     As  statements  so  diflcrq>ant  within  a 
.short  compass  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  come  from  the  sonic  pen,  we  are 


312       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

4-20,  but  in  the  remarks  that  follow  there  is  a  slight  varia- 
tion between  the  first  and  the  revised  editions  of  the 
Introduction  which  deserves  attention.  We  quote  the  first 
edition,  as  better  representing  the  facts,  and  give  the  revised 
form  below.1  "  Here,"  it  is  said,  "  is  a  long  passage  virtually 
identical  in  Deuteronomy  and  Leviticus;  and  that  it  is 
borrowed  by  D  from  P — or  at  least  from  a  priestly  collec- 
tion of  toroth  —  rather  than  conversely,  appears  from 
certain  features  of  style  which  connect  it  with  P  and  not 
with  Deuteronomy.  ...  If  so,  however,  one  part  of  P  was  in 
existence  when  Deuteronomy  was  written ;  and  a  presump- 
tion at  once  arises  that  other  parts  were  in  existence  also. 
Now  the  tenor  of  Deuteronomy  as  a  whole  conflicts  with 
the  supposition  that  all  the  institutions  of  the  Priests'  Code 
were  in  force  when  D  wrote ;  but  the  list  of  passages  just 
quoted  shows  that  some  were,  and  that  the  terminology 
used  in  connection  with  them  was  known  to  D."2  The 
"  list "  referred  to  gives  in  parallel  columns  a  long  catalogue 
of  passages  of  Deuteronomy  corresponding  "  with  P  (includ- 
ing H),"  with  note  of  some  peculiarities  in  the  mode  of 
quotation.8  On  another  page  it  is  said :  "  In  Deuteronomy 
the  following  parallels  may  be  noted,"  with  list  again  given.4 
These  are  significant  admissions,  and  completely  dispose  of 
the  unqualified  statements  first  quoted.  Eeduced  to  its 
real  dimensions,  Dr.  Driver's  argument  only  is  that  some 
of  the  characteristic  institutions  of  P — e.g.,  the  distinction 
of  priests  and  Levites — conflict  with  the  tenor  of  D ; 6  and 
even  this  contention,  resting  largely  on  the  argument  from 
silence,  cannot  be  allowed  the  weight  he  attaches  to  it.  As 
he  himself  says:  "That  many  of  the  distinctive  institutions 
of  P  are  not  alluded  to — the  day  of  atonement,  the  jubilee 
year,  the  Levitical  cities,  the  sin-offering,  the  system  of 

driven  back,  on  critical  principles,  upon  the  supposition  that  the  work  is 
really  the  composition  of  a  Driver  "  school "  whose  members  vnry  slightly  in 
their  standpoints — a  hypothesis  which  other  indications  support. 

1  The  7th  edition  reads:  "Here  is  a  long  passage  in  great  measure 
verbally  identical  in  Deuteronomy  and  Leviticus,  and  a  critical  comparison 
of  the  two  texts  makes  it  probable  that  both  are  divergent  recensions  of  a 
common  original,  which  in  each  case,  but  specially  in  Leviticus,  has  been 
modified  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  book  in  which  it  was  in- 
corporated. It  is  thus  apparent  that  at  least  one  collection  of  priestly 
toroth,  which  now  forms  part  of  P,  was  in  existence  when  Deuteronomy  was 
written,"  etc.  (p.  145).  The  rest  as  above. 

a  Ibid.,  pp.  187-38  (1st  edit.).  >  Ibid.  pp.  73-75. 

4  Ibid.  p.  144.  *  Ibid.  p.  137. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     313 

sacrifices- prescribed  for  particular  days — is  of  less  import- 
ance: the  writers  of  these  [historical]  books  may  have 
found  no  occasion  to  mention  them." l  The  argument  from 
silence  applies  nearly  as  much  to  the  parts  of  the  law 
which  he  admits  to  have  existed,  as  to  those  which  he 
thinks  did  not  exist ;  and  as  much  to  praxis  as  to  Code.2 

However  the  matter  may  appear  to  Dr.  Driver,  it  is 
certain  that  to  many  able  critics,8  looking  at  the  facts  from 
a  different  point  of  view,  the  evidence  seems  conclusive 
that  Deuteronomy  was  acquainted  with  the  laws  of  P. 
"  The  Deuteronomic  legislation,"  says  Eiehm  positively, 
"  presupposes  acquaintance  with  the  Priestly  Code." 4 
Dillmann  puts  the  Priests'  Code  earlier  than  Deuteronomy, 
and  the  Law  of  Holiness,  named  by  him  S  [  =  Sinai],  in  the 
main  earlier  still.6  He  says :  "  That  D  not  merely  knows 
priestly  laws,  but  presupposes  them  as  well  known,  appears 
from  many  passages  of  his  book." 8  "  It  is  just  as  certain 
that  D  presupposes  and  has  used  other  laws  (S)  which  now 
lie  before  us  in  the  connection  of  A  [  =  P]."7  Oettli  says  : 
"  Here  certainly  such  laws  as  now  lie  before  us  only  in  the 
codification  of  P  appear  as  well  known  and  in  validity." 8 
He  agrees  with  Delitzsch  and  the  others  quoted  that 
Deuteronomy  shows  itself  acquainted  with  the  priestly 
laws.9  Baudissin  also  puts  the  Law  of  Holiness  before 
Deuteronomy.10  These  judgments  of  leading  critics,  which 
might  be  largely  multiplied,  are  not  based  on  slight  grounds. 
The  proofs  they  offer  are  solid  and  convincing.  We  can  as 
before  only  give  examples,  but  these  will  sufficiently  indicate 
the  line  of  argument 

1  Inirod.  p.  137.  The  author,  accordingly,  falls  back  on  "the  different 
tone  of  feeling,  and  the  different  spirit  "  of  tfie  historical  books  ;  and  allows 
that  "it  is  not  so  much  the  institutions  in  themselves  as  the  system  with 
v  hich  they  are  associated,  and  the  principles  of  which  in  P  they  are  made 
more  distinctly  the  expression,  winch  seem  to  bear  the  marks  of  a  more 
advanced  stage  of  ceremonial  observance  "  (ibid.  p.  152).  Thus  the  matter 
t-nds  to  get  refined  sway.  Cf.  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson  on  the  argument  from 
silence,  quoted  in  Note  C  above. 

5  Dr.  Driver  makes  a  point  of  the  difference  in  the  mode  of  quotation  in 
Deuteronomy  from,  or  reference  to,  JE  and  P  respectively  (ibid.  pp.  76,  187). 
Hut  his  statements  need  qualification.  See  Note  D  on  Quotations  from  JE 
and  P. 

*  Kg.  Dillmann,  Delitzsch,  Riehni,  Kittel,  Oettli,  etc. 

*  Einleit.  I  p.  218.  •  Num.-Jo».  pp.  644-47,  660. 

•  Ibid.  p.  605.  T  Ibid.  •  Deut.,  Introd.  p.  14. 

•  Ibid.  p.  15.  w  Diet,  of  Bible,  iv.  p.  82, 


DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

Deut.  xiv.  4-20  (on  clean  and  unclean  animals)  is,  as  Dr. 
Driver  admits,  "  in  great  measure  verbally  identical "  with 
Lev.  XL  4-20. 

The  permission  to  kill  and  eat  flesh  at  home  in  Deut. 
xii  15,  20  ff.,  presupposes  and  modifies  (in  view  of  the 
entrance  into  Canaan,  ver.  20)  the  stringent  law  in  Lev.  xvii. 
1-3,  that  all  slaying  was  to  be  at  the  tabernacle  door ; l 
and  the  reiterated  prohibitions  of  eating  the  blood  (vers.  16, 
23-25)  rest  on  the  enactments  in  P  on  the  same  subject 
(Lev.  xvii  23-25;  cf.  Gen.  ix.  4;  Lev.  iii.  17;  vii.  26, 
27,  etc.). 

In  Lev.  XL  there  is  a  law  relating  to  the  eating  of  things 
that  die  of  themselves  (vers.  39,  40 ;  cf.  chap.  xvii.  15,  16) ; 
in  Deut.  xiv.  21  there  stands  a  law  which,  with  some  modi- 
fication, presupposes  the  former.  This  is  marked  by  the 
use  of  the  word  "  carcase  "  (Heb.).  The  discrepancy  alleged 
to  exist  between  the  laws  probably  arises  from  the  prospect 
of  altered  conditions  in  Canaan.2 

"  The  year  of  release "  in  Deut.  xv.  1  ff.  glances  at  the 
Sabbatic  year  of  Lev.  xxv.  2  ff. 

The  law  of  the  Passover  in  Deut.  xvi.  1  ff.  presupposes 
throughout  the  law  in  Ex.  xii.  (P),  and  modifies  it  in  the 
important  respect  that  the  Passover  is  to  be  no  longer  a 
domestic  festival,  but  is  to  be  observed  at  the  central 
sanctuary  (vers.  5,  6).  This  implies  the  earlier  family 
observance,  while  it  is  inconceivable  that  a  law  ordaining 
the  home  observance  should  arise  after  Deuteronomy. 

The  references  to  uncleanness  in  Deut.  xxiii.  9, 10,  imply 
a  knowledge  of  laws  of  ceremonial  impurity,  as  in  Lev.  xv. 

Deut.  xxiv.  8  expressly  affirms  the  existence  of  a  Mosaic 
law  of  leprosy  given  to  the  priests  (cf.  Lev.  xiii.,  xiv.). 

Deut.  xxii.  30  certainly  does  not  intend  to  limit  the 
crime  of  incest  to  this  one  case,  but,  as  Delitzsch  says,3  has 
in  view  the  whole  series  of  enactments  in  Lev.  xviii.  7  ff. 

It  has  before  been  pointed  out  that  in  Deut.  xviii.  2  we 
have  a  verbal  reference  to  the  provision  for  the  Levites  in 
Num.  xviii.  20  ff.  In  the  same  chapter  we  have  parallels 
in  vers.  10,  11  to  Lev.  xviii.  21  ff,  xix.  26,  31,  etc. 

1  Kuenen  by  a  peculiar  logic  will  have  it  that  the  command  in  Deutero- 
nomy excludes  the  law  in  Leviticus;  why,  Oettli  says,  is  " unerfindlich " 
(Deut.  p.  14). 

1  Cft  p.  276  above  and  Note  there. 

'  Genesis,  i.  p.  42.     See  Delitzsch's  whole  list,  pp.  41-42. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     315 


It  Will  be  seen,  even  from  this  selection  of  instances, 
that  the  references  more  or  less  explicit  to  priestly  laws  in 
Deuteronomy  cover  large  sections  of  the  Levitical  legislation, 
e.g.,  Lev.  xi.,  xiii.,  xiv.,  xv.,xvii.,xviii.,  xix.;  Num.  xviii.  20  ff. 
eta  If,  with  Dr.  Driver,  we  fall  back  on  the  assumption 
of  "  old  laws,"  then  these  old  laws  must  have  been  so 
extremely  like  those  we  possess  in  Leviticus,  that  it  is 
hardly  worth  disputing  about  the  differences,  and  the 
argument  against  the  pre-exilian  existence  of  the  Levitical 
laws  goes  for  nothing. 

The  legislation  of  P,  therefore,  is  in  manifold  ways 
implied  in  Deuteronomy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  peculiarities 
of  Deuteronomy  are  not  in  any  degree  reflected  in  tlie  Levitical 
law.  There  is  allusion  to  the  priestly  law  in  Deuteronomy, 
but  the  Priestly  Code  is  apparently  ignorant  of  Deuteronomy, 
and  certainly  does  not  depend  on  it.1  What  conclusion  can 
we  draw  from  such  a  fact  but  that  the  Priestly  Code  is  the 
earlier  of  the  two  ? 

V.  DIFFICULTIES  OF  THE  CRITICAL  THEORY  OF 
INSTITUTIONS 

An  important  part  of  our  argument  remains,  viz.,  to 
show  the  untenableness  of  the  rival  critical  explanation  of 
those  institutions  for  which  a  post-exilian  date  is  claimed. 
The  institutions  in  any  case  are  there  in  post-exilian  times, 
and  have  to  be  explained.  If  the  account  which  the  Old 
Testament  itself  gives  of  them  is  not  the  true  one,  how  did 
they  originate  ?  On  this  constructive  side,  as  palpably  aa 
anywhere  else,  the  critical  theory  breaks  down.  We  begin, 
as  a  chief  example,  with  the  Ezekiel  theory  of  the  origin  of 
the  Levitical  order,  then  shall  pass  to  the  consideration  of 
feasts  and  other  institutions. 

1.  A  chief  part  of  the  argument  on  institutions  relates 
to  the  fundamental  question  —  already  so  often  referred  to—- 
of the  distinction  of  priests  and  Levites,  That  distinction,  . 
in  the  view  of  the  critics,  did  not  exist  when  Deuteronomy 
was  composed  in  the  reign  of  Josiah  :  it  is  a  prominent 
feature  in  the  Priests'  Code.  How  was  the  transition 

1  Cf.  Dillmann,  Num.-Jo$.  p.  668.  See  list  of  instances  which  render 
at  least  probable,  in  his  view  (as  respects  law  in  S  certain),  dependence  of 
Deuteronomy  on  the  Priestly  Code,  pp.  606-7,  610. 


316      DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

effected  ?  The  answer  given  to  this — hinted  at  by  Graf,1 
developed  by  Kuenen 2  and  Wellhausen,3  and  now  a  cardinal 
article  of  faith  in  all  sections  of  the  school 4 — is,  through 
the  degradation  of  the  idolatrous  priests,  i.e.,  the  "dis- 
established priests  "  of  the  high  places,  on  the  lines  sketched 
by  Ezekiel  in  chap.  xliv.  4  ff.  In  Kuenen's  view  the  man 
who  is  not  prepared  to  accept  this  explanation  is  only 
deserving  of  pity.5  Wellhausen  indicates  his  estimate  of 
the  importance  of  the  contention  in  the  remark :  "  The  position 
of  the  Levites  is  the  Achilles  heel  of  the  Priestly  Code." 6 
We  agree,  in  the  sense  that  it  is  the  most  vulnerable  part 
in  the  new  scheme. 

The  Ezekiel  theory  of  the  critics  is  bound  up  with  so 
many  subsidiary  hypotheses,  and  involves  so  many  question- 
begging  assumptions,  that  it  is  not  easy  to  disentangle  it  in 
its  simplicity.  Its  corner-stone,  e.g.,  is  the  assumption  that 
the  Levites  for  whom  provision  is  made  in  Deut.  xviii.  6,  7 
are  "  the  disestablished  priests  "  of  the  bamoth — an  assumption 
which  we  regard  as  baseless.  When  we  turn  to  Ezekiel 
xliv.  4  ff.  itself,  what  we  find  is  that  the  prophet  denounces 
the  house  of  Israel  for  having  permitted  strangers,  un- 
circumcised  in  heart  and  flesh,  to  perform  the  subordinate 
services  of  the  sanctuary  (vers.  7,  8) ;  that  he  forbids  this,  to 
be  done  in  the  future  (ver.  9) ;  that  he  degrades  to  the  rank 
of  servants  in  the  sanctuary  those  priests  who  had  turned 
aside,  and  had  caused  the  people  to  turn  aside,  to  idolatry 
(vers.  10-14) ;  and  finally,  that  he  confines  the  priesthood 
in  his  new  temple  to  the  sons  of  Zadok,  who  alone  had 
remained  faithful  (vers.  15,  16).  There  is  certainly  in  these 
verses  degradation  of  priests  to  that  lower  rank  of  service 
which  the  Priestly  Code  assigns  to  the  Levites ;  but  this  is 
very  far  from  proving  that  we  have  here  the  origin  of  the 
order  of  the  Levites,  or  from  explaining  the  representa- 
tion of  the  Priestly  Code,  which  diverges  as  widely  as 
it  is  possible  to  do  from  the  lines  of  Ezekiel's  ordinance. 
There  are  admittedly  difficulties  in  the  interpretation 
of  Ezekiel's  vision ;  but  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of 

1  Geschicht.  Biicher,  p.  45. 

1  Rel.  of  Israel,  ii.  p.  168  ;  Hex.  pp.  293  ff.:  c£  p.  205. 

3  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  122  IF. 

4  Kayser,  Sinend,  Kautzsch,  W.  E.  Smith,  Driver,  etc.  (Kbnig  agrees  with 
the  critics  here). 

«  Hex.  p.  205.  «  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  167. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     317 

accepting  this  reading  of  its   meaning  are   to   our  mind 
insurmountable. 

(1)  That  the  temple  service  prior  to  the  exile  was  in  a 
deplorable  condition — that  both  in  and  out  of  the  temple  the 
priesthood  had  largely  fallen  into  abominable  idolatries — all 
indications  show.1     Irregularities  abounded,  and  the  prophet 
is  sufficient  witness  that  the  place  which  the  law  gives  to 
the  Levites  had  been  mostly  usurped   by  uncircumcised 
strangers.2    But   the   first    point    evidently   which   claims 
notice  here  is,  that  this  very  ministry  of  the  uncircumcised 
the  prophet  denounces  as  an  iniquity,  a  violation  of  God's 
covenant,  and  the  setting  up  by  the  people  of  keepers  of 
His  charge  in  His  sanctuary  for   themselves  (vers.  7,  8). 
This  ministry,  therefore,  was  not,  in   his   view,  a  lawful 
thing,  but  a  breach  of  law,  an  abomination  like  the  idolatry 
itself.     What,  then,  in  the  prophet's  mind,  was  the  lawful 
order?   who,   prior   to   the   degradation    of  the  idolatrous 
priests,  were   the   lawful   keepers    of    the    charge  of  the 
sanctuary  ?    Not  the  priests  themselves,  for  the  services  in 
question  were  subordinate   ministries — the  very  ministries 
ascribed  elsewhere  to  the  Levites  (ver.  11 ;  cf.  Num.  xviii 
3,  4).     Is  not  the  inference  very  plain,  though  the  critics 
generally  ignore  it,  that,  in  Ezekiel's  view,  there  did  already 
exist  a  law  on   this  subject,  which   in  practice  had  been 
wantonly  violated  ? s     It  can  hardly  be  mistaken  that  the 
only  properly  official  classes  recognised  by  the  prophet  in 
the  service  of  the  temple  are  Levitical,  and  that  these  are 
distinguished  into  a  higher  and  a  lower  class — the  keepers 
of  the  charge  of  the  house  (chap.  xl.  45),  and  the  keepers  of 
the  charge  of  the  altar  (ver.  46).     The   unfaithful  priests 
are  punished  by  being  degraded  to  the  lower  rank.4 

(2)  The  next  point  to   be  borne  in  mind  is,  that  this 
programme  of  Ezekiel  was,  and  remained,  a  purely  ideal  one. 
It  was  probably  never  intended  to  have  literal  realisation ; 
it  was  at  least  never  actually  put  in  force  at  the  return,  or 

1  Cf.,  e.g.,  Jer.  vii.,  viii.  ;  Ezek.  viii. 

1  On  the  view  advocated,  e.g.,  by  W.  R.  Smith,  O.T.  in  J.  C.,  pp.  262-3, 
that  these  already  aro  thn  guards  of  the  sanctuary  in  the  reign  of  Joash 
(1  Kings  xi.),  cf.  Van  Hoonacker,  Lt.  Saeerdoee  Ltvitiqw,  pp.  93  If. 

3  Cf.  Delit/soh,  Luthardt's  Zeilxhrift,  1880,  pp.  279  ff.  ;  Van  Hoonacker, 
Lt  Sactrdoce  Lemtique,  pp.  191  ff.     The  prophet  would  seem  to  be  familiar 
with  the  name  "  Levites     for  the  lower  order  distinctively  (Ezek.  xlviii.  13 — 
"And  answerable  to  the  border  of  the  priests,  the  Levites  shall  have,'1  etc.). 

4  See  Note  E  on  Levites  in  Ezekiel. 


3i8       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

at  any  earlier  time.  The  degradation  it  depicts  was  never 
historically  carried  out ;  therefore  could  not  affect  the  state 
of  things  subsisting  after  the  exile.  Scholars  have  indeed 
pleased  themselves  with  pictures  of  "  vehement  struggles  " 
(adumbrated  in  the  story  of  Korah)  on  the  part  of  Ezekiel's 
degraded  priests  to  regain  their  lost  privileges ; x  but  these 
"  struggles "  exist  nowhere,  so  far  as  we  know,  but  in  the 
critics'  own  imaginations,  for  there  is  no  trace  in  history 
that  any  such  degradation  ever  took  place.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  have  seen  that  the  distinction  of  priests  and 
Levites  was  already  known,  and  universally  recognised,  at 
the  time  of  the  return  from  exile.  The  Books  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  assume  it,  but  in  no  sense  create  it.  If,  there- 
fore, this  distinction  was  not  made  by  Ezekiel's  law  directly, 
as  little  can  it  have  been  called  forth  by  the  Priests'  Code 
founded  on  that  law,  for  the  Code  did  not  make  its  appear- 
ance till  Ezra's  time,  long  after.  It  follows,  in  agreement 
with  what  has  been  said,  that  it  can  only  be  understood  as 
an  inheritance  from  pre-exilian  times. 

(3)  Still  more  decisive,  perhaps,  is  the  fact  that  the 
•Code,  when  it  did  come,  by  no  means  corresponded  with 
'Ezekiel's  picture,  on  which  it  is  presumed  to  be  based,  but 
in  many  respects  stood  in  direct  contradiction  with  EzekieL 
There  is,  as  already  said,  nothing  in  the  Code  to  suggest 
"  disestablished  priests,"  degradation  as  a  punishment,  sub- 
stitution for  uncircumcised  strangers,  or  any  of  the  other 
ideas  of  Ezek.  xliv.  On  the  contrary,  the  Levites  are 
represented  as  set  apart  by  Jehovah  Himself  in  the 
wilderness  for  His  peculiar  service,  and  their  position  from 
the  first  is  one  of  privilege  and  honour.2  Again,  in  the 

1  Kautzsch,  e.g.,  says  :  "Again  in  the  narrative  of  the  revolt  of  the 
Korahites,  now  blended  in  Num.  xvi.  with  an  older  account  of  a  political 
revolt  of  the  Reubenites,  we  have  a  clear  reflection  of  the  vehement  struggles 
(subsequently  buried  in  deep  silence  [!]),  occasioned  by  the  dislike  the 
non-Zadokites  felt  to  the  manner  in  which  they  were  employed  in  religious 
services." — Lit.  of  0. T.,  p.  117.  It  is  thus  he  accounts  for  the  fewness  of 
the  Levites  at  the  return. 

8  Kautzsch  says:  "According  to  Ezek.  xliv.  10  ff.,  the  sentence  which 
reduced  the  former  priests  of  the  high  places  to  the  inferior  services  of  the 
sanctuary  was  a  deserved  punishment ;  according  to  the  Priests'  Code  the 
service  of  the  Levites,  by  virtue  of  a  divine  appointment,  is  an  honourable 
office  of  which  they  may  be  proud  "  (ibid.  p.  117).  Kautzsch's  theory  is,  that 
the  revolts  of  the  non-Zadokites  above  referred  to  compelled  the  priestly 
circles  "to  find  another  ground  for  the  position  of  the  Levites"  (pp. 
117-18).  Again  a  pure  imagination  of  the  critic. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     319 

Code,  the  priests  are  not  "sons  of  Zadok"  only  (a  vital 
point  in  Ezekiel),  but  the  "sons  of  Aaron"  generally. 
Ezekiel  can  be  conceived  of  as  having  modelled  his  picture  on 
the  basis  of  the  Code  by  limiting  the  priestly  dignity  to  the1 
Zadokites ;  the  Code  can  never  be  explained  as  a  construc- 
tion from  his  ideas. 

(4)  Yet,  apparently,  this  Code,  so  discrepant  with 
Ezekiel,  harmonised  with  the  people's  own  recollections  and 
traditions,  since  we  find  that  they  unhesitatingly  received 
it.  This  simple  fact,  that,  according  to  the  history,  the 
provisions  of  the  Code  were  received  without  questioning 
by  priests,  Levites,  and  people  alike,  is  of  itself  sufficient  to 
overthrow  the  theory  that  the  distinction  was  a  new  one 
due  to  the  initiative  of  Ezekiel.  How  possibly  could  such  a 
thing  as  the  critics  suppose  ever  have  happened  ?  Had  the 
Zadokites  nothing  to  say  about  the  loss  of  the  exclusive 
position  given  them  by  Ezekiel  ?  Were  the  Levites  content 
that  certain  families  of  their  number — the  non-Zadokite 
Aaronites — should  have  the  priestly  prerogatives  which 
Ezekiel  had  denied  them,  while  others  had  not?  If  the 
records  do  not  deceive  us,  both  priests  and  Levites  knew 
something  of  their  own  past.  They  had  many  links  with 
that  past  by  genealogies  and  otherwise.  If  the  Levites  or 
their  fathers  had  been  disestablished  priests  of  high  places, 
they  must  have  been  perfectly  aware  of  the  fact.  Yet  the 
Levites  assent  to  have  a  position  given  to  them  which 
agrees  neither  with  their  own  recollections,  nor  with  the 
rights  of  priesthood  alleged  to  be  accorded  to  them  in 
Deuteronomy,  nor  with  the  degradation  theory  of  Ezekiel — 
which  is  thus  condemned  on  every  side  as  unhistorical. 
That  such  a  patent  make-believe  should  have  succeeded  is 
on  the  face  of  it  incredible.  Even  had  priests  and  Levites 
been  willing  to  acquiesce  in  the  new  mock  status,  the 
people  on  whom  the  fresh  and  heavy  tithe-burdens  fell 
would  not  have  been  likely  to  do  so.  The  longer,  in  fact, 
the  theory  is  pondered,  the  more  untenable  it  must  appear. 

2.  What  applies  to  the  critical  explanation  of  the  dis- 
tinction of  priests  and  Levites  applies  with  not  less  force  to 
the  explanations  offered  of  otfier  institutions,  whose  pre- 
exilic  existence  is  called  in  question.  We  take  a  few  of 
the  more  typical  instances. 

(1)  There  are  the  three  great  feasts  of   the  nation — 


320       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

passover,  or  unleavened  bread,  the  feast  of  weeks,  and 
the  feast  of  tabernacles :  these  are  robbed  of  their  historical 
'reference,  and  declared  to  be  mere  agricultural  observances, 
locally  observed  till  the  age  of  Josiah,  when  Deuteronomy 
centralised  them.  The  ceremonial  character,  in  particular, 
stamped  on  them  by  the  Priestly  Code  is  held  to  be  wholly 
post-exilian.  But  no  tenable  account  is  given  of  this 
sudden  rise  of  agricultural  festivals  into  historical  signifi- 
cance, and  of  their  unquestioned  acceptance  as  feasts  having 
this  historical  meaning,  in  the  age  of  Ezra.  Special  assault 
is  made  upon  the  Biblical  account  of  the  institution  of  the 
passover,  and  of  its  association  with  the  Exodus.  Yet  we 
have  seen  that  the  law  in  Ex.  xiL  3  ff.  is  unintelligible,  as 
framed  for  a  domestic  observance  of  the  passover,  unless 
it  is  placed  before  the  centralising  ordinance  in  Deutero- 
nomy; while  the  latter  by  its  use  of  this  name  pesach 
(passover),1  its  reference  to  the  month  Abib  (chap.  xvi.  1), 
and  its  distinct  historical  allusions  (vers.  3,  6),  as  clearly 
presupposes  the  older  law.  The  three  feasts  appear  from  the 
first,  in  all  the  Codes,  as  national  (not  local)  feasts ; z  and  in 
every  instance,  with  but  one  exception,  the  passover,  or  feast 
of  unleavened  bread,  is  directly  connected  with  the  Exodus. 
That  one  exception,  strange  to  say,  is  the  most  instructive 
of  all  as  a  refutation  of  the  critical  theory.  It  is  the 
priestly  law  of  Lev.  xxiii.  4  ff. ;  yet  it  alone  (1),  as  said,  lacks 
a  reference  to  the  Exodus;  (2)  contains  the  regulation 
about  presenting  a  sheaf  of  first-fruits  which  gives  the  feast 
any  agricultural  character  it  has;  while  (3)  neither  in  it, 
nor  in  the  law  for  passover  offerings  in  Num.  xxviii.  16  ff., 
is  mention  made  even  of  the  paschal  lamb.8  So  that  we 
have  this  curious  result,  in  contradiction  of  the  critical 
theory,  that  the  historical  reference  comes  in  at  the 
beginning,  and  the  agricultural  at  the  end  of  the 
development ! 

How,  now,  on  the  other  hand,  do  the  critics  explain 
the  name  "  passover  "  and  the  historical  reference  attached 
to  this  feast  ?  Only,  it  must  be  replied,  by  again  arbitrarily 
blotting  out  the  history  we  have,  and  indulging  in  con- 

1  Wellhausen  says  this  word  "first  occurs  in  Deuteronomy, "a statement, 
of  course,  which  (1)  begs  the  question  as  to  the  date  of  Ex.  xiL,  and  (2) 
ignores  Ex.  xxxiv.  25. 

1  Ex.  xxiii.  14-19  ;  xxxiv.  18-26  ;  Lev.  xxiii.  ;  Deut.  xvi.  1-17. 

'  See  Note  F  on  Alleged  Contradictions  in  the  Passover  Laws. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     321 

jectures-of  their  own,  about  which  there  is  no  agreement. 
Wellhausen,  e.g.,  will  have  it  that  the  Exodus  was,  in  the 
tradition,  connected  with  the  demand  to  be  permitted  to 
observe  a  spring  festival,  a  chief  feature  of  which  was  the 
offering  of  firstlings.  Cause  and  effect  became  inverted, 
and  instead  ''of  the  festival  being  the  occasion  of  the 
Exodus,  it  came  to  be  regarded  as  occasioned  by  it.  Out 
of  this  grew — how  we  are  not  told — the  story  of  the  slaying 
of  the  firstborn  in  Egypt.  Even  so  the  meaning  of  the 
name  "passover"  is  allowed  to  be  "not  clear."1  As  the 
history  stands,  both  the  passover  rite,  and  the  dwelling 
in  booths  which  gives  the  feast  of  tabernacles  its  name 
(Succoth),*  find  their  appropriate  explanation;  but  it  is 
impossible  to  conceive  how,  in  the  full  light  of  history, 
these  meanings  could  come  to  be  imported  into  them  at  so 
late  an  age  as  Ezra's. 

The  notices  of  the  feasts  in  the  history  are,  it  is  allowed, 
scant.  But  they  are  more  numerous  than  Wellhausen 
admits,  and,  such  as  they  are,  unless  again  we  arbitrarily 
reject  the  narratives,  they  contradict  his  theory,  and  are  in 
keeping  with  the  law.  At  the  head  of  the  series  stands 
the  observance  of  the  passover  in  Ex.  xii.,  and  the 
wilderness  observance  in  Num.  ix.  4,  5,  which  gives  rise  to 
a  supplementary  ordinance.  Then  comes  the  observance  of 
the  passover  under  Joshua  at  Gilgal  in  Josh.  v.  10,  11. 
Pawing  the  yearly  feast  of  Jehovah  at  Shiloh  (tabernacles  ? 
Judg.  xxi.  19 ;  1  Sam.  i.  3, 7,  21),  we  have  a  general  reference 
to  the  three  feasts  in  Solomon's  reign  (1  Kings  ix.  25 ;  cf. 
2  Chron.  viii.  13),  and  special  allusions  to  the  feast  of 
tabernacles  in  1  Kings  viii.  2,  65,  66 ;  xii.  32,  33.  Hosea 
makes  allusion  to  the  dwelling  in  tents  at  this  feast 
(chap.  xii.  9).  The  Chronicler  records  a  great  observance ) 
<»f  the  passover  under  He/ekiah  in  a  narrative  too  detailed 
jind  circumstantial  to  be  the  work  of  invention.8  Then  we' 
come  to  the  great  passover  of  Josiah,  of  which  it  is  said 
that  the  like  of  it  had  not  been  held  "from  the  days  of  the 
Judges  that  judged  Israel."4  The  returned  exiles  under 
Zerubbabel  observed  both  the  feast  of  tabernacles  and  the 

1  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  87-83.  *  Lev.  xxiii.  39-43. 

*2  Chron.  xxx.  The  Chronicler  may  \te  held  to  "improve"  for  homiletio 
imri-oscs  an  existing  narrative,  but  a  history  like  this,  without  any 
foundation  for  it,  would  be  an  absolute  fraud. 

4  2  Kings  xxiii.  21-23  ;  cf.  2  Chron.  zzzr.  1  ff. 

tl 


322       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

passover  according  to  known  laws,1  and  the  reading  of  the 
law  by  Ezra  was  the  occasion  of  another  great  observance  of 
the  feast  of  tabernacles,  with  special  reference  to  the 
requirements  of  Lev.  xxiii.  Here  again  it  is  declared 
that  such  a  feast  had  not  been  observed  "since  the  days 
k>f  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun."2  It  is  a  straining  of  these 
passages  in  Kings  and  Nehemiah,  and  a  contradiction  of 
their  own  testimony,  to  make  them  affirm  that  there  had 
been  no  observance  of  the  feasts  named  in  earlier  times ; 
the  allusion  is  evidently  to  the  enthusiasm,  spontaneity, 
and  scrupulous  attention  to  the  law,  with  which  the  feasts 
were  observed — in  the  latter  case  with  special  regard  to 
the  "booths."3 

(2)  As  a  second  example,  we  may  glance  at  the  case 
of  the  sin-  and  trespass-offerings,  of  which  it  is  alleged  that 
the  first  mention  is  in  Ezekiel.4  Sin-  and  trespass-offerings 
were  in  their  nature  occasional,  and  we  might  readily  be 
tempted  to  suppose  that  they  had  fallen  largely  into  disuse 
in  pre-exilic  times.  Yet  even  this  would  be  a  rash  infer- 
•  ence  from  silence.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  Ezekiel  writes 
of  these  offerings,  not  as  something  new,  but  as  quite 
familiar  to  his  readers;5  they  are  found  also  in  the  Law 
of  Holiness,6  which,  we  have  seen,  precedes  Ezekiel,  and  is, 
from  all  indications,  very  old.  Nor  is  it  true  that  no  earlier 
trace  of  them  exists.  Ps.  xl.  cannot  be  put  later  than  the 
exile,  and  is  probably  earlier,  yet  in  it  the  sin-offering  is 
spoken  of  as  a  customary  sacrifice  (ver.  6).  Isa.  liii.  10 
declares  that  the  soul  of  Jehovah's  Righteous  Servant 
is  made  a  "  guilt-  (trespass-)  offering."  Kuenen  allows  that 
the  "  sin-offering "  is  not  unknown  to  Hosea  (chap.  iv.  8), 
though  he  fails  to  find  a  distinction  between  the  sin-  and 
the  trespass-offering.7  Yet  in  2  Kings  xii.  16  a  clear 
reference  is  made  to  "  trespass-money "  and  "  sin-money," 
which,  as  Kuenen  again  grants,  must  have  had  a  certain 

1  Ezra  iii.  4  ;  vi.  22.  a  Neh.  viii.  11  ff. 

3  Hos.   xii.    9    may  suggest  that  usage  has  substituted    "tents"   for 
literal  "booths." 

4  "  Of  this  kind  of  sacrifice,"  says   Wellhausen,    "not  a  single   trace 
occurs  in  the  Old  Testament  before  Ezekiel." — Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  73. 

8  Ezek.  xl.  39  ;  xlii.  13  ;  xliii.  19  ;  xliv.  29 ;  xlvi.  20.  Cf.  Dr.  A.  B. 
Davidson,  Ezekiel,  Introd.  p.  liv.  Cf.  Note  C. 

8  Lev.  xix.  21,  22  ;  xxiii.  19. 

7  Hex.  p.  210  ;  cf.  Kittel,  Hist,  of  Hebs.  i.  p.  114.  Even  in  the  kw 
the  distinction  is  not  very  rigorously  kept. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     323 

connection  with  the  Levitical  offerings.1  Even  if  it  be 
supposed  'that  a  custom  had  grown  up  of  commutation  of 
the  sacrifices  by  "pecuniary  fines,"  the  sacrifices  and  the 
law  requiring  them  are  still  presupposed.  The  idea  of  a 
trespass-offering  was  present  in  some  form  to  the  minds 
of  the  Philistines  in  the  time  of  the  Judges:2  a  fact  which 
shows  it  to  be  old.  No  proper  explanation  is  given  of  the 
when,  where,  or  how,  of  the  introduction  of  these  sacrifices, 
on  the  critical  theory. 

(3)  One  of  the  most  daring  strokes  of  the  Wellhausen 
criticism  is  the  denial  of  the  existence  of  the  incense-offering 
in  pre-exilic  times,  and,  as  involved  in  this,  the  denial  of  an 
altar  of  incense,  not  simply  in  the  supposed  imaginary 
tabernacle,  but  even  in  the  Solomonic  temple.  Wellhausen 
goes  still  further,  and,  in  face  of  the  express  statements  in 
1  Mace,  i  21  ff. ;  iv.  49,  that  the  golden  altar  and  golden 
table  were  both  carried  away  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
and  renewed  at  the  feast  of  the  dedication,  casts  doubt  on 
the  existence  of  an  altar  of  incense  even  in  the  second 
temple.8  The  chief  ground  for  these  denials  is  the  fact 
that,  in  Exodus,  the  command  for  the  making  of  the  altar 
of  incense  does  not  appear  where  we  might  expect  it,  in  chaps, 
xxv.-xxix.,  but  at  the  commencement  of  chap.  xxx.  How 
arbitrary  the  procedure  is,  is  shown  by  the  clear  testimony 
of  at  least  four  passages  of  the  history  (1  Kings  vi.  20,  22 ; 
vii.  48 ;  ix.  25 ;  cf.  2  Chron.  iv.  19)  to  the  construction  and 
presence  of  the  golden  altar  in  the  temple  of  Solomon.4 

The  critical  theory  of  the  tithe-laws,  of  the  Levitical 
cities  as  transformations  of  the  Bamoth,  and  other  matters, 
have  already  been  referred  to.6 

3.  In  conducting  the  above  argument,  we  have  laid  little 
stress  on  incidental  words  or  allusions  in  either  the  historical 
or  the  prophetical  books  which  might  seem  to  indicate 
acquaintance  with  the  Levitical  legislation.  These  allu- 
sions, though  not  decisive  in  themselves,  are  more  numerous 

1  Hex,  p.  211 ;  of.  Delitrsch,  Luthanlt's  Zeit»ehr\ft,  1880,  p.  8. 

•  1  Sam.  vi.  8.  *  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  64-67. 

4  Delitzsch  admirably  shows  the  groundlessness  of  Welihausen's  general 
reasonings,  and  particuliirly  of  his  assertion  that  "  the  golden  altar  in  the 
sanctuary  is  originally  simply  the  golden  table  "  (Hint.  p.  66),  in  his  article 
on  the  subject  in  ZeiLichrijft,  1880,  pp.  113  ff.  Ezekiel,  whom  Wellhausen 
cites  in  bis  favour,  is  shown  to  be  really  a  witness  against  him. 

•  See  above,  pp.  275,  290,  etc. 


324       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES. 

than  the  critics  are  wont  to  allow,  and,  when  a  pre-exilian 
origin  of  Levitical  laws  is  independently  rendered 
probable,  acquire  enhanced  importance.  Joel,  e.g.,  which 
>  used  to  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  earliest  of  the  prophetical 
books,  has  many  allusions  which  suggest  the  ritual  code — 
the  sanctuary  and  its  altar  in  Zion,  priests,  blowing  of 
trumpets,  fasts,  solemn  assemblies,  meal  and  drink-offerings, 
etc.1 — and  is  now,  largely  for  this  very  reason,  regarded  by 
the  Wellhausen  school  as  post-exilian.2  Yet  we  question 
if  the  allusions  in  Joel  are  more  definite  than  those  of  the 
earlier  prophets,  or  would,  on  critical  principles,  suffice  any 
more  than  these,  to  establish  a  knowledge  of  the  written 
law,  which  is  yet  allowed  to  have  been  in  existence  when  he 
wrote.  Not  to  dwell  on  Amos  (e.g.,  chap.  v.  21,  22),  we  may 
cite  such  a  passage  as  Isa.  i.  13,  14:  "Bring  no  more  vain 
oblations ;  incense  is  an  abomination  unto  Me ;  new  moons 
and  sabbaths,  the  calling  of  assemblies, — I  cannot  away  with 
iniquity  and  the  solemn  meeting.  Your  new  moons  and 
your  appointed  feasts  My  soul  hateth,"  etc.  (cf.  ver.  11 ; 
chaps,  iv.  5  ;  xxxiii.  20 — "  the  city  of  our  solemnities  ").  The 
vocabulary  of  this  passage — "assembly"  (convocation), 
"  solemn  meeting,"  "  appointed  feasts,"  etc. — and  the  allusions 
to  festivals  and  sacrifices,  are  entirely  suggestive  of  the 
Levitical  law  (cf.  Lev.  xxiii. ;  Num.  xxviii. ;  cf.  Deut.  xvi.  8). 
lieference  was  before  made  to  the  allusions  in  the  prophets 
to  a  cycle  of  feasts,  of  which  little  or  nothing  is  said  in  the 
history.  Thus,  Isa.  xxix.  1 :  "  Let  the  feasts  come  round  " ;  or 
Nah.  i.  15  :  "Keep  thy  feasts,  0  Judah,  perform  thy  vows." 
It  cannot  be  overlooked,  further,  that  the  prophets 
constantly  assume  the  people  to  be  in  possession  of  "  statutes," 
or  "  statutes  and  judgments  "  8 — i.e.,  of  fixed  laws — evidently 
of  considerable  extent,  and,  we  must  suppose,  written.  That 

1  Joel  i.  9,  13,  14  ;  ii.  1,  15-17,  etc. 

2  Duhm,  who  led  the  way  here,  said   in  his  Theof.  der  Proph.  (187-r>) 
that  at  that  time  scholars  almost  unanimously  put  Joel  early  (p.  71).     His 
own  proofs  are  mainly  a  begging  of  the  question  of  the  post-exilian  origin  of 
the  Law.     He  describes  Joel  as  an  "epigon,"  with  a  great  gift  for  form, 
>>nt  not  much   burdened   with    thoughts.      The    theory  is  combated   by 
Delitzsch,  Orelli,  Reuss,  Professor  J.  Robertson,  Kirknatrick,  and  others. 
Delitzsch  said  of  it :  "  The  bringing  down  of  Joel  into  the  post-exilic  age  by 
Duhm,  Merx,  Stade,  and  others,  is  one  of  the   most  rotten  fruits  of  the 
modern  criticism." — O.T.  Hist,  of  Redemption,  p.  113  (E.T.). 

3  Amos  ii.  4  (R.V.) ;  Jer.  xfiv.  10;   Ezek.  v.  6,  xi.  12,  etc.     Cf.  Lev. 
xvii.-xxvi.,  and  Deuteronomy  (constantly). 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     325 


"  statutes  "  were  covered  by  the  word  torah  (instruction, 
law)  we  see  no  reason  to  doubt.  Here  comes  in  that  much- 
debated  passage,  Hos.  viii.  12  :  "  Though  I  write  for  him  my 
law  in  ten  thousand  precepts  (R.V.  marg.,  "  wrote  for  him 
the  ten  thousand  things  of  my  law  "),  they  are  counted  as 
a  strange  thing."  l  If  this  does  not  point  to  written  law  of 
considerable  compass,  it  is  difficult  to  know  what  form  of 
words  would.  Smeud,  at  an  earlier  stage,  found,  as  was 
before  shown,*  Hosea  and  Amos  impregnated  with 
Levitismus  (e.g.,  Hos.  ix.  3-5).  It  may  be  observed  that 
Hosea  has  also,  in  the  view  of  many,  unmistakable  assonances 
with  Deuteronomy.8  When  to  these  indications  in  the 
prophets  we  add  what  was  before  said  of  allusions  in  the 
historical  books  to  ark,  tabernacle,  Aaronic  priesthood,  high 
priest,  ephod,  shewbread,  etc.,  and  of  the  evidence  which 
these  books  afford  of  a  knowledge  of  festivals,  of  sacrifices 
(burnt  -  offerings,  peace-offerings,  meal  -  offerings,  drink- 
offerings,  probably  sin-offerings  as  well),  of  ritual  of  worship, 
of  laws  of  purity,  of  clean  and  unclean  food,  of  leprosy,  of 
consanguinity,  prohibitions  of  eating  blood,  etc.  —  we  may 
begin  to  feel,  with  Dillmann,  that  the  allusions  in  history 
and  prophecy  are  well-nigh  as  numerous  as  we  had  any 
right  to  expect 

Of  the   law  itself,  we  would   only   say   in   closing,  in  i 
opposition  to  the  purely  secular,  and  often  unworthy,  views 
of  its  origin  we  have  been  discussing,  that  it  is  pervaded  by 
a  spirit  of  holiness,  and,  in   its  aim   and  structure,  is  as 
unique  as  all   the   other    parts  of    the    Jewish   religion. 

1  Wellhansen  renders  thia  passage  :  "  How  many  soever  my  instructions 
may  be,  they  are  counted  those  of  a  stranger."  —  Hist,  of  Israrl,  p.  57.  This 
1MMM  oat  altogether  the  word  of  chief  importance  —  "  write.  Delitzsdi 
thinks  that  passages  like  Hos.  iv.  6  ;  viii.  1  ;  Amos  ii.  4  ;  Isa.  i.  11-14  show 
"  that  a  codex  of  the  Mosaic  law  was  already  in  existence  in  the  time  of  the 
prophets  of  the  eighth  century,"  and  says  :  "  with  the  last  passage  we  may 
compare  Hos.  viii.  12,  which  should  be  translated,  '  were  I  to  write  for  him 
the  myriads  of  my  law,  they  would  be  regarded  as  strange,'  that  is,  a  still 
in  TV  extensive  Torah  would  have  the  same  fate  as  the  existing  one."  Then, 
af  er  quoting  Smend's  translation,  "  I  wrote  for  him  myriads  of  my  law," 
he  says  :  "These  words  of  Hosea  certainly  indicate,  as  even  Schrader 
acknowledges,  the  existence  of  a  divinely  obligatory  law  in  the  form  of  a 
codex."—  Met*.  Profihtcics  (E.T.  1880),  p.  11. 

»  See  above,  p.  159. 

»  Cf.  Hos.  ii.  8,  xii.  8,  xiii.  6.  with  Dent  vii.  13,  viii.  7-20,  xi.  14-16  ; 
Hos.  viii.  11,  with  Deut.  xii.  ;  Hos.  xii.  18,  with  Deut  xviii.  18  ;  Hoa.  iv. 
4,  with  Deut.  xvii.  12  ;  Hos.  viii.  13,  ix.  8,  with  Deut.  xxviii.  68  ;  Hoc. 
xi.  8.  with  Deut  xxix.  23  ;  Hos.  xii.  7,  with  Dent  xxv.  13-16,  etc. 


326       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

Whatever  the  formal  resemblances,  the  Levitical  law  had 
nothing  essentially  in  common  with  heathen  ritual,  but 
rested  on  a  basis  of  its  own.  No  heathen  religion  had  a 
system  based  on  the  idea  of  the  holiness  of  God,  and 
governed  by  the  design  of  restoring  and  maintaining 
fellowship  with  God,  and  the  peace  of  conscience  of  the 
worshipper,  by  the  grace  of  atonement.  For  this  was  the 
real  nature  of  the  Levitical  system.  It  was  designed  in  all 
its  parts  to  impress  on  the  mind  of  the  worshipper  a  sense 
of  the  separation  which  sin  had  put  between  him  and  the 
holy  God,  and  provided  a  means  by  which  the  people, 
notwithstanding  their  sin,  could  have  access  to  God,  and 
enjoy  His  favour.1  There  is  nothing  in  this,  if  the  Bible's 
own  view  of  the  course  of  revelation  is  accepted,  incom- 
patible with  its  early  origin.  It  is  one  of  the  groundless 
assumptions  of  the  newer  theory  that  the  idea  of  expiation 
by  sacrifice  was  foreign  to  the  pre-exilian,  and  earlier 
Israelitish,  mind.  One  sufficient  proof  to  the  contrary  is 
furnished  in  1  Sam.  iii.  14 :  "  Therefore  I  have  sworn  unto 
the  house  of  Eli,  that  the  iniquity  of  Eli's  house  shall  not 
be  purged  ("  atoned  for,"  the  Levitical  word)  with  sacrifice 
nor  offering  for  ever." 

VI.  TIME  OF  ORIGIN  OF  THE  LEVITICAL  LAW 

To  sum  up  our  argument  thus  far :  we  have  sought  to 
show,  on  both  moral  and  historical  grounds,  and  by  positive 
proof  to  the  contrary,  that  the  Graf-Wellhausen  theory  of  a 
post-exilian  origin  of  the  Levitical  Code  cannot  be  upheld. 
Its  main  stronghold  is  the  argument  from  silence ;  but  that 
silence  is  neither  so  complete  as  is  alleged,  nor  are  the 
inferences  drawn  from  it  warranted.  By  a  similar  argument, 
if  Deuteronomy  were  left  out  of  account,  it  might  be  proved 
that  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  also,  as  a  written  Code,  was 
not  known  before  the  exile.  Yet  Deuteronomy  shows  how 
erroneous  would  be  such  an  inference. 

If,  however,  the  Priestly  Code  is  not  a  post-exilian 
production,  when  did  it  originate?  Here  we  pass  over 
unreservedly  to  the  standpoint  of  Wellhausen  as  against 
those  mediating  critics,  who,  with  more  or  less  admission  of 
antiquity  in  parts,  assume  the  law  as  a  whole  to  have  taken 
1  Cf.  Heb.  ix.,  x.  On  Unity  of  the  Law  see  above,  p.  294. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     327 

shape  in  the  hands  of  the  priests  about  the  ninth  century 
B.C.,  or  between  that  and  the  time  of  Deuteronomy — but 
still  only  as  a  quasi-private  document, — a  "  programme  " 
struggling  for  recognition  and  very  imperfectly  attaining 
it, — and  receiving  changes  and  additions  as  far  down  as  the 
exile.  Such,  in  general  statement,  is  the  midway  theory 
advocated  by  critics  like  Noldeke,  Dillmann,  Kittel,  and 
Jiaudissin,  and  against  it  the  more  compact  and  internally 
consistent  hypothesis  of  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen  bears 
down  with  irresistible  force.1  Such  a  theory  is  strong, 
indeed,  in  its  proof,  as  against  the  Wellhausen  contention, 
that  the  Levitical  law  is  older  than  Deuteronomy,  no  trace 
of  whose  existence  it  betrays,  while  Deuteronomy  very 
evidently  shows  traces  of  its  influence,  but  it  is  weak  as 
water  in  arguing  for  the  existence  of  a  Code  which  embodies 
the  idea  of  the  unity  of  the  sanctuary  a  century  or  two 
before  Deuteronomy  was  heard  of,  while  yet  holding,  with 
the  De  Wette  school,  that  this  idea  first  came  to  recognition, 
or  at  least  to  influence,  with  the  publication  of  Deuteronomy 
in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  Kuenen  is  fully  justified  in  protest- 
ing against  this  "  idea  of  the  passive  existence  of  these  laws 
for  ages  before  they  had  any  practical  influence."2  A 
theory  which,  like  that  of  the  older  scholars,  carries  back 
the  bulk  of  the  laws  to  Mosaic  or  immediately  post-Mosaic 
times,  or,  again,  a  theory  which,  like  Wellhausen's,  brings 
them  all  down  to  times  subsequent  to  Deuteronomy, — 
which  means,  practically,  to  the  exile  or  after, — 
can  be  understood:  there  is  coherence  in  it.  But  this 
intermediate  theory,  which  ascribes  to  the  laws  an  un- 
acknowledged existence — suspends  them,  as  it  were,  in  the 
air — in  the  days  of  the  kings,  and  supposes  them  to  have 
remained  inoperative  for  centuries,  is  impotent  against  the 
assaults  of  its  energetic  opponents.8  It  encounters  all  the 
difficulties  of  the  older  theory,  arising  from  the  supposed 

1  On  Noldeke's  views,  cf.  Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  46-51  ; 
Kuenen,  Hex,  Introd.  pp.  xxxvi  ft".  For  Noldeke  also  the  tabernacle  is  "  a 
mere  creature  of  the  brain."  On  the  theory  generally,  see  Note  0  on  the 
Mediating  View  of  the  Priestly  Code. 

1  As  above,  p.  xxxi. 

•Wellhausen  ridicules  those  "who  in  blind  faith  hold  fast,  not  to  the 
Church  tradition — there  would  be  sense  in  that — but  to  a  hypothesis  which 
is  but  two  decades  old,  viz.,  De  Wette's  discovery  that  Deuteronomy  is  more 
recent  than  the  Priests' Code." — Geschiehte  Israels,  p.  173  (1st  edit:  the 
pMMge  is  dropped  in  Proltg.). 


328       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

silence  of  the  history  and  conflict  with  Deuteronomy,  and 
has  none  of  its  compensating  advantages.  For  the  law 
presents  in  no  sense  the  aspect  of  a  private  priestly  pro- 
gramme, struggling,  without  success,  for  recognition  and 
acceptance.  It  rests  on  very  definite  principles  and  ideas, 
gives  itself  out  in  all  seriousness  as  a  Code  of  wilderness 
legislation  (why,  it  may  be  asked,  should  ninth  century 
priests  throw  their  "  programme "  into  this  form  ?),  and 
presents  not  the  slightest  trace  of  hesitation  or  doubt 
in  its  demands.  It  ascribes  its  legislation  in  obvious  good 
faith  to  Moses,  or,  more  correctly,  to  God  through  him. 
We  agree,  therefore,  that  this  middle  theory  of  a  "  trance- 
like  "  existence  of  the  Levitical  Code  in  the  ninth  or 
eighth  century,  to  the  priestly  circles  of  which  it  owed  its 
origin,  cannot  stand  before  the  rigorous  logic  of  the  newer 
criticism.  It  is  such  theories  which  give  the  Wellhausen 
criticism  its  "case."  We  reckon  it,  indeed,  one  of  the 
greatest  services  of  the  Graf- Wellhausen  scheme  that  it 
effectually  cuts  out  this  mediating,  but  logically  helpless 
view  which  weakly  contests  the  ground  with  it,  and  leaves 
us  fairly  face  to  face  with  the  ultimate  alternative — a  post- 
exilian  origin  of  the  law,  which  many  reasons  show  to  be 
untenable,  or  a  real  antiquity  of  the  law  answerable  to  its 
own  profession. 

It  is  involved  in  what  has  been  said  that  it  is  the  latter 
alternative  which  we  adopt,  and  so  come  back  to  the  older 
position  of  a  substantially  Mosaic  origin  of  the  laws.  It  is 
not  necessarily  implied  in  this  that  Moses  wrote  all  these 
laws,  or  any  one  of  them  with  his  own  pen ;  or  that  they 
were  all  written  down  at  one  time  ;  or  that  they  underwent 
no  subsequent  changes  in  drafting  or  development ;  or  that 
the  collection  of  them  was  not  a  more  or  less  gradual 
process ;  or  that  there  may  not  have  been  smaller  collections, 
such,  e.g.,  as  that  lying  at  the  basis  of  the  Law  of  Holiness — 
in  circulation  and  use  prior  to  the  final  collection,  or 
codification,  as  we  now  have  it.  There  is  much  plausibility 
in  Dillmann's  conjecture  that  the  Law  of  Holiness  (Lev. 
xvii.-xxvL),  with  its  Sinaitic  signature  (chap.  xxvi.  46),  its 
constantly  recurring  formula, "  I  am  Jehovah  your  God,"  and 
its  references  to  deliverance  from  the  bondage  to  Egypt,  in 
its  original  form  stood  after  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  in 
Exodus  (cf.  chap.  xxiv.  12),  as  a  summary  of  the  priestly 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     I.  THE  CODE     329 

legislation  of  Sinai.1  However  this  may  be — and  we  lay  no 
stress  upon  it — there  appears  no  good  ground  for  assuming 
that  the  general  codification  was  not  completed  at  a  very 
early  date,  possibly  before  the  relapse  in  the  time  of  the 
Judges,  and  probably  not  later  than  the  early  days  of  the 
monarchy.  There  is  nothing  we  can  discover  which  points 
to  a  later  date ;  though  it  does  not  follow  that  there  may 
not  have  been  minor  modifications  and  adjustments  after.* 

1  Dillmann,  Ex.-Lcv.  pp.  261,  534. 
*  See  further  below,  pp.  372  S. 


CHAPTER  X 

Difficulties  ant>  perplexities  of  tbe  Critical  f)$po* 
tbesis :  ZTbe  priestly  HBlrltfng.  H.  TCbe  2)ocu* 
ment 


"  A  really  vivid  picture  of  the  manner  in  which  the  documents  are 
interwoven  cannot  be  given  by  merely  stating  the  numbers  of  the  verses. 
And  it  is  just  as  impossible  to  state  with  each  single  verse  or  section  whether 
it  is  assigned  to  the  document  in  question  by  all  investigators  or  by  the 
majority  or  only  by  a  few.  In  the  Pentateuch  and  in  the  Book  of  Joshua 
it  is  only  with  regard  to  P  that  something  like  unanimity  has  been  reached." 
— KAUTZSCH. 

"In  the  present  state  of  Hexateuch  criticism  the  weightiest  question  is 
not,  how  much  of  the  Pentateuch,  as  it  comes  to  us,  has  Moses  himself 
written  .  .  .  but  this  is  the  chief  question :  Does  the  Priestly  Writing 
contain  trustworthy  accounts  of  the  time  and  work  of  Moses,  or  is  everything 
narrated  in  it,  as  the  modern  'science'  maintains,  only  defacement,  fiction, 
yea,  'the  merest  fiction,'  and  full  of  contradictions  with  the  (so-called)  alone 
old  tradition  offered  by  J  and  E  ?  I  venture  to  saj  that  in  many  cases  the 
alleged  contradiction  is  not  present ;  elsewhere  the  word  of  Augustine  holds 
good,  Distingue  tempora  et  concordaMt  scriptura  ;  and  in  yet  other  places  the 
difficulty  is  occasioned  through  glosses  of  other  readers — glosses  for  which 
we  cannot  make  the  redactor  or  redactors  responsible." — STRACK. 

"  I  suppress  my  regret  that  Wellhausen  has  still  not  advanced  to  the 
point  of  recognising  in  the  firmly-defined  writer  Q  [=P],  whose  narrative 
is  composed  with  regard  to  JE,  and  enclasps  this  element,  as  taking  the 
place  of  the  inner  content  lacking  to  itself,  the  everywhere  sought  for  and 
nowhere  found  E." — KLOSTEKMANN. 


CHAPTER  X 

DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES  OF  THE  CRITI- 
CAL HYPOTHESIS:  THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING. 
IL  THE  DOCUMENT 

IN  nothing  are  critics  of  all  schools  more  at  one  than 
in  the  recognition  of  a  writing,  partly  historical  and  partly 
legislative,  running  through  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua, 
which,  from  its  linguistic  and  other  traits,  has  been 
variously  described,  in  the  course  of  opinion,  as  the  Elohist 
document,  the  Grundschrift  (primary  document),  the  1st 
Elohist,  the  Priestly  Writing,  the  Priests'  Code,  or  simply 
P.1  Yet  the  history  of  opinion  on  this  Priestly  Writing, 
as  on  other  parts  of  the  documentary  theory,  has  been 
a  slow  development,  and  has  been  marked  by  at  least 
four  critical  stages,  the  general  nature  of  which  has  already 
been  indicated. 

1.  With  reference  to  the  compass  of  the  writing,  it 
has  already  been  seen  that  all  Elohistic  matter,  or  matter 
agreeing  with  the  Elohistic  in  character  and  style,  was 
originally  assigned  to  this  assumed  fundamental  document. 
Even  here,  indeed,  it  was  soon  found  necessary  to  make 
distinctions  and  multiply  parts,  but  these  variations  may  at 
present  be  disregarded.  The  first  critical  point  was  reached 
when,  on  the  ground  of  its  greater  affinity  with  the  Jehovist, 
Hupfeld  removed  a  considerable  part  of  this  Elohistic  matter, 
and  set  it  up  as  a  separate  document,  thenceforth  known 
as  E,  or  the  2nd  Elohist.  Previously  much  stress  hud 
been  laid  on  the  unity  and  completeness  of  the  Elohistic 
document,  as  giving  "  a  connected  narrative  of  the  theocracy  " 
from  the  creation  to  the  settlement  in  Canaan.2  Now, 

1  Wellhausen  uses  the  symbol  Q  (QwUuor— Book  of  the  Four  Covenants) ; 
Dillmann  and  others  use  A  for  this  document. 
'  Cf.  Bleek,  Introd.  I  p.  200. 


334       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

however,  that  the  2nd  Elohist  was  cut  out  of  it, 
extremely  little,  as  will  be  shown,  was  left  to  the  older 
writer  in  Genesis  after  chap,  xvii.,  and  it  was  felt 
to  be  curious  that  the  1st  Elohist  should  become  so 
extremely  fragmentary  just  where  the  new  writer  came 
in. 

2.  In  respect  to  the  age  of  the  document,  we  have  seen 
how,  originally,  the   Elohistic  document  was  all  but   uni- 
versally recognised  as  the  fundamental  part,  or  Grundschrift, 
of   the    Pentateuch,   while    the    Jehovist   was   viewed   as 
supplementary.1     A  change  was  prepared  for  here*  also  by 
Hupfeld's   contention  that    J    and    E    were    independent 
histories.       Then   came   the    Graf-Wellhausen   upturning, 
by  which  the  supposed  Grundschrift  was   lifted  from  the 
beginning  of  the  literary  history,  and  carried  down  bodily 
to  its  close.     Graf,  however,  as  was   formerly  mentioned, 
did   not  at  first   contemplate   so  great  a  revolution.     He 
brought   the   Levitical   laws  down  to  the   exile,  but   was 
content  to  leave  the  Elohistic  history  in  its  old  place — prior 
to  Deuteronomy.     Subsequently,  in  deference  to  Kuenen, 
he  renounced  that  view,  and   accepted   the   late   date  for 
both.2     It    is  carefully   to   be   observed   that  it   was  not 
critical  reasons,  but  a  dogmatic  consideration — the  supposed 
necessity  of  keeping  history  and  laws  together — which  led 
Graf  to  this  tour  deforce  as  respects  the  P  history. 

3.  A  difference  next   emerged   in  respect  of  the  inde- 
pendence   of    the    document.       In    putting    the    Priestly 
Writing  late,  Graf  felt  that  the  ground  was  taken  from 
the  older  view  that  the  Grundschrift  was  an  independent 
document,  complete  in  itself,  and   he  sought   to  show,  as 
Kuenen  states  it,  "  that  its  narratives  not  only  presuppose 
those   of  the   Yahwist,  but  were   intended  from  the  first 
to  supplement  them,  and  to  constitute  a  single  whole  with 

1  See  above,  p.  201. 

2  See  above,  p.  200.     Colenso,  in  Pent.  Pt.  vi.  pp.  579  ff.,  adhered  to,  and 
contended  strongly  for,  Grafs  original  view  of  the  history :  thus  also  in 
Pt.  vii.  Carpenter  says  that  "he  finally  acquiesced  in  the  modern  view."- 
ffex.  i.  p.  69.     If  he  did,  Cheyne  does  not  seem  to  have  known  of  the 
change  (Founders  of  Grit.  p.  203),  and  Kuenen  only  says  :  "  He  subsequently 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  he  had  been  at  least  to  some  extent  mistaken." 
— Hex.  p.  70  (with  reference).     We  are  very  certain  that  whether,  under 
pressure  of  the  opinion  of  others,  Colenso  changed  his  view  or  not,  he  never 
refuted  his  own  arguments  against  the  lute  date.     A  change  of  this  kind 
would  mean  the  collapse  of  the  reasoning  of  a  great  part  of  his  volumes. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     II.  DOCUMENT     335 

them."1  In  this,  as  we  shall  seek  to  show,  Graf  proved 
himself  more  logical,  and  took  up  a  sounder  position,  than 
Kuenen  and  Wellhausen,  who  held  to  the  old  assumption 
that  the  Priestly  Writing  originally  subsisted  by  itself. 

4.  With  respect,  finally,  to  the  unity  of  the  writing, 
a  great  change  has  latterly  been  brought  about  (1)  by  the 
splitting  up  of  the  P  document  into  a  P1,  P2,  P3,  etc.,  and  (2) 
by  the  abandonment  of  the  idea  of  a  single  writer  for  that 
of  "  schools,"  whose  activity  extended  over  a  long  period.2 
This  change  also  strikes  a  blow  at  the  idea  of  the  P  writing 
being  a  complete  and  independent  history,  as  was  at  first 
imagined. 

It  will  already  begin  to  appear  that  the  problem  of  the 
Priestly  Writing  is  by  no  means  so  simple  as  it  is  apt  to 
seem  in  the  neat  statements  of  the  text-books.  The 
difficulties  inherent  in  the  current  view  will,  we  believe, 
only  become  clearer  on  nearer  inspection. 

L  Is  THERE  A  PRIESTLY  WRITING  IN  DISTINCTION 
FROM  JE? 

The  initial  question  is  as  to  the  right  to  speak  of 
a  Priestly  Writing,8  or  style  of  writing,  at  all  in  the 
Pentateuch,  in  distinction  from  JE,  already  considered. 
Here  it  is  at  once  to  be  admitted  that  the  case  stands 
somewhat  differently  from  what  it  did  with  JE.  It  cannot, 
we  think,  be  reasonably  disputed,  and  only  a  few  critics  of 
the  present  day,  even  among  the  more  conservatively 
disposed,*  would  be  prepared  to  deny,  that  the  sections 
ordinarily  attributed  to  P  have  a  vocabulary,  and  a 

1  Hex.  pp.  xxx,  xxxi.     See  below,  p.  341. 

*  Graf  alao  originally  explained  in  this  way  the  resemblance  of  the  style 
of  the  Levitical  laws  to  the  P  sections  in  Genesis.     Thus  on  Gen.  xvii.  : 
"  We  can  only  conclude  that  this  older  law  of  circumcision  served  as 
a  model  in  formulating  laws  during  the  exile  and  after  it,  with  an  aim 
at  antiquity  ...  or  that  these  formula  were  generally  at  all  times  usual 
in  certain  circles  of  priestly  legislators,  from  whom  the  composition  of  that 
law  proceeded." — Qtschicht.  BScJutr,  p.  98. 

*  In  using  this  customary  designation  we  by  no  means  commit  ourselves 
to  the  position  that  the  authors  are  necessarily  priests.     Colcnso  vigorously 
combats  the  idea  that  the  Elohistic  sections  in  Genesis  are  jtriestly,  cf.  Pent. 
Pt.  vi.  pp.  581  ff.  ;  App.  pp.  126  ff. 

4  Thus  the  late  Priueij>al  Cave,  as  already  mentioned,  in  his  Jnxjnratirm 
of  the  0.  T.,  distinguishes  an  Elohistic  and  a  Jehovistic  writing  in  Genesis, 
inclining  to  attribute  both  to  MOM*. 


336       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

stylistic  character,  of  their  own,  which  render  them  in  the 
main  readily  distinguishable.  The  case  for  the  distinc- 
tion, indeed,  is  often  enormously  overdriven.  The  long 
lists  of  words  alleged  to  be  peculiar  to  P  admit  of  great 
reduction,  many  of  the  marks  assumed  for  the  document 
are  no  sure  criteria,  the  skill  that  distinguishes  a  P1,  P2,  P3, 
P4  is  continually  to  be  distrusted,  some  of  the  descriptions 
of  the  P  style  are  little  better  than  caricatures.1  Yet  on 
the  whole  it  is  a  distinct  style.  It  is  a  style  stately  and 
impressive  of  its  own  kind  ;  in  such  a  chapter  as  Gen.  i.  rising 
to  sublimity,  in  narrative  often  exhibiting  a  grave  dignity, 
as  in  Gen.  xxiii.,  occasionally,  again,  as  in  the  story  of 
Gen.  xxxiv.,  not  readily  distinguishable  from  that  of  JE.2 
It  is  a  style,  however,  less  flowing,  lively,  picturesque, 
anthropomorphic  than  that  of  JE ;  more  formal,  circum- 
stantial, precise.  We  should  speak  of  it  in  the  Book  of 
Genesis  as  less  a  priest-like  than  a  lawyer-like  style ;  the 
style  of  a  hand  trained  to  work  with  laws,  genealogies, 
chronologies,  to  put  things  in  regular  and  methodical  shape, 
to  give  unity  and  exactitude  to  looser  compositions.  It 
is  marked  by  general  adherence  to  the  name  "  Elohim  "  till 
the  revelation  of  the  name  Jehovah  in  Ex.  vi.  2  ff. 

"We  have  referred  to  the  limitations  with  which  the 
statements  often  made  as  to  the  vocabulary,  and  other 
supposed  marks  of  the  P  document,  are  to  be  received, 
and,  to  form  a  just  idea  of  the  writing,  these  also  need  to 
be  remembered.  In  sifting  the  lists  of  words  and  phrases 
put  forth  as  signs  of  this  document,3  we  are  speedily  struck 
with  the  fact  that  many  of  them  occur  only  once  or  twice 

1  Wellhausen  exhausts  the  vocabulary  of  contempt  in  conveying  his  idea 
of  the  pedantry,  verboseness,  insufferable  tediousness,  and  barrenness  of  the 
Priests'  Code.  "Art-products  of  pedantry.  .  .  .  One  would  imagine  that 
he  was  giving  specifications  to  measurers  for  estimates,  or  that  he  was 
writing  for  carpet-makers  or  upholsterers.  ...  Of  a  piece  with  this 
tendency  is  an  indescribable  pedantry,  belonging  to  the  very  being  of  the 
author  of  the  Priestly  Code.  .  .  .  Nor  is  it  any  sign  of  originality,  rather 
of  senility,"  etc. — Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  337,  348,  350,  353.  Addis  consider- 
ately grants  that  the  "intolerable  pedantry"  of  the  Priestly  Writer  in 
Ex.  xxxiv.-xl.  is  due  more  to  "  the  successors  of  the  Priestly  Writer 
and  his  school"  than  to  the  Priestly  Writer  himself. — Hex.  i.  p.  Ixix. 

-  What  most  critics  ascribe  to  P  in  this  narrative,  Colenso  gives  to  J. 
See  further  below,  p.  352. 

3  The  lists  may  be  seen  in  detail  in  Dillmann,  Driver,  Carpenter,  West- 
phal,  etc.  The  reader  will  do  well  to  note  how  small  a  proportion  of  them 
is  carried  on  to  Joshua. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WHITING.     II.  DOCUMENT    337 

in  the  Book  of  flem-sis,  or  in  the  whole  Pentateuch ;  that 
some  belong  to  particular  passages  from  the  nature  of  their 
subject,  and  are  not  general  in  P,  or  elsewhere ;  that  some 
are  found  also  in  JE ;  that  other  examples  are  doubtful  (JE 
or  P) ;  that  within  the  limits  of  P  itself  the  language  varies 
greatly,  and  in  very  few  cases  are  the  words  uniformly 
distributed  through  the  sections.  This  statement  may  be 
briefly  illustrated.  There  are  few  better  examples  of  the 
words  and  phrases  of  P  than  the  following:  "After  his 
(their)  kind,"  "  be  fruitful  and  multiply,"  "  male  and 
female,"  "swarm,"  "establish  (give)  a  covenant"  (JE  has 
"  cut "  =  make),  "  self-same  day,"  "  possession,"  "  create," 
"expire"  (A.V.  "die,"  Gen.  vi.  17,  etc.),  "substance,"  etc. 
Yet  of  these,  "kind,"  "swarm,"  "male  and  female,"  occur  in 
Genesis  only  in  the  narratives  of  the  creation  and  flood. 
"Kind"  occurs  elsewhere  only  in  the  laws  of  clean  and 
unclean  food,  Lev.  xi.  (P)  and  Deut.  xiv.  (D) ;  "  swarm  "  in 
the  same  laws,  but  also  in  Ex.  viii.  3  (JE);  "male  and 
female"  three  times  in  ritual  passages  in  Leviticus. 
"Create"  (bara)  occurs  only  in  Gen.  L-ii  4 ;  v.  1  (P), 
and  chap,  vi  7  (J),  with  Deut.  iv.  32  (D).  "Substance" 
occurs  five  times  in  P  passages  in  Genesis,  but  also  in 
Gen.  xiv.  (five  times),  and  chap.  xv.  14 — which  are  not 
P ;  elsewhere  twice  in  Numbers.  We  are  probably  not  un- 
warranted in  regarding  such  formulae  as  "be  fruitful  and 
multiply,"  "establish  My  covenant,"  preserved  in  Gen.  i.,  ix., 
xvii.,  etc.,  as  very  old,  and  belonging  to  pre-Mosaic  tradition 
of  covenant  and  promise.1  It  is  thus  evident  that  many 
of  the  alleged  marks  of  P  are  absent  from  the  greater  part 
of  the  P  writing  just  as  much  as  from  JE ;  *  too  much  stress, 
therefore,  should  not  be  laid  on  them.  The  significant  thing 
is  that  where  they  do  occur,  and  are  repeated,  it  is  mostly 

1  P  varies  the  formula  about  multiplying,  e.g.,  in  Ex.  i.  7  ;  and  the  JE 
passages  that  follow  in  Ex.  i.  hare  clear  verbal  references  to  P's  language 
(vers.  9,  10,  12,  20— in  Heb.). 

*  We  cannot  follow  the  late  Dr.  Green  in  his  denial  of  a  distinct  literary 
li.in  1  in  P,  but  that  able  scholar  is  surely  justified  in  pointing  out  thitt 
"only  two  words  or  phrases  noted  as  characteristic  of  P  in  chap.  i.  occur 
again  in  Genesis  after  chap,  ix.,"  and  that  "  after  the  covenant  with  Abraham 
(chap,  xvii.),  which  recalls  that  of  Noah  (chap,  ix.),  almost  every  mark  of  P 
in  the  preceding  part  of  Genesis  disappears  entirely.  Scarcely  a  word  or 
phrase  that  is  reckoned  characteristic  of  P  in  chaps,  xvii.  or  xxiii.  is  found 
in  later  chapters  of  Genesis,  except  where  the  transactions  of  the  latter  are 
explicitly  referred  to,  or  the  promises  of  the  former  are  repeated." — Genesis, 
p.  553. 

22 


333       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

in  P  passages.  The  wide  statements  one  meets  with  on 
this  subject  need,  in  fact,  constantly  to  be  checked.  Mr. 
Addis,  e.g.,  writes :  "  He  (the  Priestly  Writer)  says  '  Paddan- 
Araru,'  not,  like  the  other  writers, '  Aram  of  the  two  rivers.' " l 
Yet  this  latter  designation  ( Aram  -  Naharaim)  actually 
occurs  only  once  altogether  (Gen.  xxiv.  10).  "Destroy," 
sometimes  claimed  as  a  P  word,  occurs,  outside  the 
narrative  of  the  flood  (Gen.  vi  13,  17  ;  ix.  11,  15),  only 
once  in  P  (Gen  xix.  29),  while  it  is  found  repeatedly  in 
JE  passages.  Many  of  the  other  criteria  of  distinction 
of  P  from  JE  are  equally  insecure,  or  depend  on  false 
assumptions.  Wellhausen,  e.g.,  finds  in  P  the  idea  of 
"sin,  as  the  root  of  ruin,  explaining  it,  and  capable  of 
being  got  rid  of,"  in  contrast  with  J,  who  is  marked  "  by 
a  peculiar  sombre  earnestness  .  .  .  almost  bordering  on 
pessimism ;  as  if  mankind  were  groaning  under  some  terrible 
weight,  the  pressure  not  so  much  of  sin  as  of  creaturehood."  2 
Yet  P,  we  are  often  told,  has  no  knowledge  of  the  fall, 
while  J  has.  Elsewhere,  also,  it  is  P  who  is  represented 
as  gloomy,  monotonous,  and  serious.3  Kuenen  makes  it  a 
fault  of  P  that  he  is  "  completely  dominated  by  his  theory 
of  a  graduated  progress  alike  of  the  history  of  mankind 
and  of  the  divine  revelation,"  4  as  if  this  were  not  equally 
true  of  JE.5 


II.  QUESTION  OF  THE  UNITY  AND  INDEPENDENCE 
OF  THE  PKIESTLY  WHITING 

When  the  existence  of  a  P  writing,  or  quality  of  writing, 
in  the  Pentateuch  has  been  ascertained,  we  are  still  only  at 
the  beginning  of  our  investigation.  Is  this  alleged  document 
a  unity  ?  Had  it  ever  an  independent  existence  ?  How  is 
it  related  to  JE  ?  Of  these  questions  the  most  funda- 
mental is  that  which  relates  to  P's  existence  as  an 
independent  document,  but  it  will  clear  the  way  for  dealing 

1  Hex.  p.  bcxiii  (italics  ours). 

"Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  314-15.  Dillmann,  on  the  other  hand,  declares 
of  J  that  "especially  of  all  the  three  narrators  does  he  show  the  deepest 
knowledge  of  the  nature,  origin,  and  growth  of  sin." — Genesis,  i.  p.  15. 
Neither  P  nor  E,  according  to  these  writers,  have  any  account  of  the 
fall. 

3  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  81.  4  Hex.  p.  301. 

1  See  above,  p.  62. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     II.  DOCUMENT     339 

with  this  to  consider  briefly,  first,  the  question  of  its  unity 
and  homogeneous  character. 

1.  The  old  idea  of  P  was  that,  whatever  its  date,  it 
was  essentially  a  connected  narrative  from  a  single  pen, 
though  naturally  working  up  older  materials.  We  have 
seen  that  the  case  is  fundamentally  altered  when  the 
individual  writer  is  transformed  into  a  "school."  With 
the  assumption  of  a  series  of  priestly  writers,  belonging  to 
yet  wider  "circles,"  the  later  members  of  the  succession 
inheriting  the  vocabulary  and  methods  of  the  earlier  and 
continuing  their  work,  unity  of  composition  tends  to 
disappear.  It  is  now  open  to  account  for  resemblance  of 
style  by  "imitation."  As  in  regard  to  Deuteronomy  we 
have  a  D2,  who  successfully  "  imitates  "  the  ideas  and  style 
of  D1,  with  numerous  Deuteronomic  revisers  of  historical 
books  later ; l  so  we  can  now  speak  of  a  P2,  Ps,  etc.,  who 
"  imitate "  the  style  of  P1,  of  an  author  of  the  Law  of 
Holiness  who  "imitates"  Ezekiel,2  of  a  P  writer  .in  the 
Book  of  Joshua  who  "imitates"  the  P  of  Leviticus,8  etc. 
On  this  new  basis  it  can  no  longer  be  urged  that  similarity 
of  style  means  necessarily  sameness  of  author,  or  pleaded 
that  the  author  who  drew  up  the  Levitical  laws  must  be 
identical  with  the  author  of  the  P  sections  in  Genesis. 
There  is  no  longer  anything  to  preclude  the  supposition  of 
Delitzsch,  formerly  referred  to,  that  the  literary  activity  of 
the  Elohistic  pen  may  reach  back  to  times  nearly  approach- 
ing those  of  Moses ;  *  or  even  the  belief,  if  one  is  disposed 
to  entertain  it,  that  its  earlier  models-  go  back  beyond  the 
time  of  Moses.5  The  protocol  style  characteristic  of  this 
writing  was  certainly  not  the  invention  of  the  people  of 
Israel,  nor  its  peculiar  property ;  there  are,  besides,  marked 
features  distinguishing  the  Elohist  in  Genesis  from  the 

1  Cf.  Kuenon,  as  quoted  above,  p.  252:  "The  great  similarity  [of  Deut. 
i.-iv.  to  the  rest  of  the  book]  must  be  explained  as  the  result  of  imitation." — 
Hex.  i.  p.  117.  "It  hardly  seems  possible  to  ascribe  the  Deuteronomic 
recension  [of  Joshua]  to  a  single  author;  nor  is  there  anything  against  our 
supposing  several  hands  to  have  been  at  work  on  the  same  lines  "  (p.  131). 

*  See  above,  p.   309.      The  explanation,  says   Kuenen,  of  the  relation 
between  Ezekiel  and  P1  is  found  "in  the  supposition  that  P1  was  acquainted 
with  the  priest-prophet,  imitated  him  and  worked  on  in  his  spirit.  ...  It 
follows  that  in  Lev.  xxvi.,  where  P1  coincides  with  Ezukiel,  he  is  imitating 
him — sometimes  word  for  won!." — Ibid.  pp.  276,  287. 

8  See  above,  pp.  214  ff.  *  Genesis,  i.  p.  48.     See  above,  p.  207. 

*  Gen.    xiv.    shows    traces  of   this   P  style,    though   probably   an  old 
independent  source. 


340       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

Levitical  writer  or  writers  in  the  middle  books.  Colenso, 
e.g.,  in  support  of  this  distinction,  draws  attention  to  the 
curious  fact  that  "  the  peculiarities  of  expression  which 
distinguish  the  wo;i-Elohistic  portions  of  Genesis,  —  and 
which  the  Elohist  never  employs, — appear,  almost  all  of  them, 
in  the  Levitical  laws  or  in  Ezekiel." *  Colenso  himself 
supposes  that  the  original  Elohistic  writing  ends  with 
Ex.  vi  2-5.2  What  is  more  to  our  purpose,  Wellhausen, 
on  his  part,  finds  that  after  Exodus  "  the  independent 
main  stock  of  the  Priestly  Code  more  and  more  gives  way 
to  later  additions,  and  ceases  altogether,  it  appears,  at  the 
death  of  Moses."8  He  excludes  from  it  the  priestly 
portions  of  the  Book  of  Joshua.4 

We  do  not  require  to  adopt  any  of  these  theories  to 
admit  that  the  facts  just  noticed  with  regard  to  the 
differences  of  vocabulary  and  style  in  different  parts  of  the 
P  writing  give  probability  to  the  idea,  within,  however, 
narrower  limits,  of  a  process  of  composition,  rather  than  of  a 
single  author.  With  this  strikingly  accords  the  altered 
relations  which  the  P  writer  is  found  to  sustain  to  JE  in 
Genesis,  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  in  the 
Book  of  Joshua,  respectively.  In  Genesis,  as  is  universally 
admitted,  P  furnishes  the  systematic  "framework"  into 
which  the  remaining  narratives  are  fitted.5  In  the  middle 
books  the  systematic  arrangement  disappears.  The  parts 
(JE,  P)  appear  as  co-ordinate,  and  are  more  closely  fused 
together;  the  narrative  in  the  main  follows  a  simple 
chronological  order  ;.6  the  laws  are  interspersed,  singly,  or 
in  masses,  as  occasion  offers.  In  Joshua,  finally,  it  is  the 

1  Pent.  Ft.  vi.  p.  583  (italics  his).  We  should  prefer  to  say,  "many 
of  them."  Colenso  makes  large  use  of  this  principle  of  "imitation. 
According  to  him,  later  writers  "affected  the  language"  of  the  Elohist 
(p.  585):  "The  following  [in  Lev.  xxvi.]  appear  to  be  imitations  of 
expressions  in  Deuteronomy "  (App.  p.  3) :  "  We  can  only  conclude  that 
the  resemblance  in  question  has  arisen  from  a  deliberate  attempt  of  the 
Levitical  writer  to  imitate  the  phraseology  of  the  Elohist"  (App.  p.  126) ; 
though  he  can  on  occasion  rebuke  Euenen  for  his  use  of  it  (App.  p.  144). 
Similarly  Graf,  Gesch.  Biicher,  p.  93. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  576  ;  App.  pp.  116  ff. ;  cf.  Pt.  v.  pp.  197-211. 

1  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  357.  4  Ibid.     See  above,  p.  216. 

5  "It  actually  forms,"  says  Kautzsch,  "(at  least  in  Genesis)  the  frame- 
work in  which  the  united  whole  is  fitted." — Lit.  of  O.T.,  p.  33.  Cf.  Driver, 
Genesis,  Introd.  pp.  ii,  iii,  vi ;  Dillmann,  Genesis,  \.  p.  16. 

8  This  formed  the  ground  on  which  Principal  Cave  based  his  "Journal" 
theory  of  the  origin  of  these  narratives.— Inspir.  ofO.T.,  pp.  230  ff.,  239  ff. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     II.  DOCUMENT    341 

JE  narrative  which  furnishes  the  basis,  while  the  priestly 
parts  appear  as  supplementary  or  filling  in.1  The  sig- 
nificance of  this  important  fact  will  appear  as  we  proceed. 

2.  We  come  now  to  the  principal  question  of  the 
independence  of  the  Priestly  Writing?  Was  P  ever  a 
distinct  or  self-subsisting  document?  Here  Graf,  as  we 
saw,  severed  himself  from  his  fellow-critics,  and  surely  with 
good  logical  reason.  For  once  that  (1)  the  supplementary 
theory  was  abandoned,  and  J  was  erected  into  an  inde- 
pendent history;  (2)  E  was  cut  out  of  the  Grundschrift, 
thereby  reducing  the  latter  after  Gen.  xvii.  to  the  smallest 
dimensions;  (3)  the  unity  of  the  Priestly  Writing  was 
piecemeal  surrendered ;  and  (4)  P  was  removed  down  to  the 
exile,  long  after  JE  had  attained  a  recognised  authority,8 
nearly  every  tenable  ground  for  maintaining  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  document  was  taken  away.  The  most 
convincing  reasons,  however,  against  the  independence  are 
those  drawn  from  the  character  of  the  writing  itself,  and 
from  its  relations  to  JE.  This  must  be  looked  into  with 
some  care. 

(1)  The  structure  of  the  writing  speaks  in  the  strongest 
way  against  the  theory  of  its  original  independence. 
Reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  claim  that  P,  taken 
by  itself,  furnishes  us  with  a  connected  and  nearly  complete 
narrative  from  the  creation  to  the  conquest.  Kuenen, 
speaking  for  the  critics,  assures  us  that  the  P  history  in 
Genesis  "has  come  down  to  us  nearly,  but  not  quite 
complete  " ; 8  and  we  are  frequently  told,  as  by  Colenso,  how 
its  narrative  "  forms  a  continuous  and  connected  whole 
almost  from  beginning  to  end."4  It  is  not  easy  to  under- 
stand how,  if  it  was,  as  we  were  then  equally  assured,  a 
"  connected  whole "  in  the  days  of  Tuch  and  Bleek,  before 
the  excision  of  the  extensive  sections  now  assigned  to  E,  it 
can  be  so  still,  after  these  have  been  removed.  This 
completeness  of  the  P  history,  however,  is  a  matter  on  which 
the  ordinary  reader  is  nearly  as  competent  to  judge  as  the 
critical  scholar,  and  we  can  fancy  the  astonishment  with 

1  Wellhausen,  Hist.  ML  357,  385.     See  above,  p.  215. 

*  Cf.  Kautzsch,  quoted  bolow. 

»  Hex.  p.  66. 

'AtO.Pt.  vi.  p.  582.  Cf.  Dr.  Diiver,  Genesis,  p.  iv:  "If  read  eon- 
aecutivcly,  apart  from  the  rust  of  the  narrative,  it  will  be  found  to  form  a 
nearly  complete  whole." 


342       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

which,  after  looking  into  the  matter  for  himself,  such  a 
reader  will  regard  the  above  dicta.  In  truth,  anything  more 
fragmentary,  broken,  incomplete,  or  generally  unsatisfactory 
as  a  connected  narrative,  it  would  be  difficult  to  imagine. 
As  Wellhausen  correctly  says  of  it :  "  As  a  rule  nothing 
more  is  aimed  at  than  to  give  the  mere  links  and  articula- 
tions of  the  narratives.  It  is  as  if  Q  (  =  P)  were  the  scarlet 
thread  on  which  the  pearls  of  JE  are  hung."1  Or,  as 
Kautzsch  says,  the  Priests'  Writing  gives  us  the  pre- 
liminary history  "  in  such  extremely  scanty  outlines  as  to 
be  only  comprehensible  when  we  think  of  the  detailed 
representation  in  J  and  E  as  universally  known." 2  Yet  at 
times  its  mere  thread  of  history  widens  out  into  complete 
and  detailed  narration,  as  in  the  story  of  creation  (Gen.  L), 
part  of  the  narrative  of  the  flood  (chaps,  vi.-ix.),  the  covenant 
with  Abraham  (chap,  xvii.),  the  burial  of  Sarah  (chap,  xxiii.), 
the  story  of  Dinah  (chap,  xxxiv.),  Jacob's  second  visit  to 
Bethel  (chap.  xxxv.  8-15).  Hiatuses  abound,3  as  will  be  seen 
more  clearly  after.  From  chaps,  xi.  to  xvii.  all  that  is  told  of 
Abraham  is  comprised  in  some  eight  verses,  or  fragments  of 
verses ;  after  that,  till  the  death  of  Sarah  (chap,  xxiii.)  in 
some  six  verses,  or  parts  of  verses.  The  gaps  are  most  con- 
spicuous after  the  entrance  (in  chap,  xx.)  of  the  2nd  Elohist,  to 
whom,  as  above  said,  is  transferred  most  of  what  was  formerly 
assigned  to  the  primary  document.  Thus,  in  chap.  xxv.  19, 
we  have  the  heading,  "  T^hese  are  the  generations  of  Isaac," 
but  of  the  life  of  Isaac  thus  introduced  nothing  is  given, 
after  ver.  20,  but  the  concluding  sentence  of  ver.  26  :  "  And 
Isaac  was  threescore  years  old  when  she  bare  them" 
(whom?),  the  notice  of  Esau's  marriage,  and  the  sending 
away  of  Jacob  (chaps,  xxvi.  34,  35;  xxvii.  46-xxviii.  9). 
Jacob  is  sent  to  Paddan-Aram  to  take  a  wife,  but  of  his  long 
residence  there,  with  the  exception  of  two  interpolated 
verses  (chap.  xxix.  24,  29),  not  a  syllable  is  breathed,  and  we 
hear  no  more  of  him  till  he  is  found  returning,  rich  in  goods 
and  cattle  (one  verse,  chap.  xxxi.  18).  The  patriarch  fares, 

1  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  332  ;  cf.  p.  7  :  "For  the  most  part  the  thread  of 
narrative  is  extremely  thin."  For  the  complete  story  of  P  after  chap.  xii. 
see  p.  327. 

-Zi*.  0/0.2*.,  p.  107. 

*  Dillmann  thinks  the  document  is  preserved  nearly  complete  till  chap, 
xi.  2fi,  after  which  great  gaps  occur. — Genesis,  pp.  16,  17.  It  will  be  seen 
below  that  there  are  gaps  enough  in  the  early  part  as  well. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     II.  DOCUMENT    343 

if  possible,  still  worse  in  his  later  history.  Gen.  xxxvii.  2 
reads,  "These  are  the  generations  of  Jacob,"  but  there  is 
not  a  scrap  more  from  P  till  we  reach  chap.  xli.  46 :  "  And 
Joseph  was  thirty  years  old  when  he  stood  before  Pharaoh," 
and  the  descent  into  Egypt  in  chap.  xlvi.  6  fif.  Joseph's 
birth  had  been  mentioned  (chap.  xxxv.  24),  but  we  hear 
nothing  further  of  him  till  suddenly  he  stands  before  Pharaoh 
as  above.1  This  is  certainly  an  unexampled  specimen  of  a 
connected  and  "  nearly  complete  "  document !  The  answer 
given,  as  before,2  by  the  critics  is,  that  no  doubt  P  had 
originally  brief  notices  of  the  events  in  the  lives  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  Jacob,  Joseph,  etc.,  where  these  gaps  occur,  but  the 
"  redactor "  has  omitted  them  to  make  room  for  the  more 
copious  narrations  of  JE.3  This,  in  the  first  place,  it  must 
again  be  replied,  is  pure  hypothesis — the  buttressing  of  one 
critical  assumption  by  another,  and  does  not,  besides,  as  we 
shall  immediately  see,  meet  the  difficulties  arising  from  the 
relations  of  the  narratives.  But,  assuming  it  to  be  true, 
why  still  speak  of  the  narrative  as  we  have  it  as  "  nearly 
complete,"  and  how  explain  the  arbitrary  procedure  of  the 
redactor  in  sometimes  leaving  the  two  narratives  side  by 
side,  sometimes  intimately  blending  them,  sometimes  pre- 
serving a  stray  verse  b'ke  Gen.  xix.  29,  which  simply  repeats 
what  has  gone  before 4 — but  here  so  largely  deleting  ? 

(2)  The  alleged  independence  of  the  document  is  further 
discredited  when  we  consider  it  materially — i.e.,  in  the  relation 
of  its  subject-matter  to  that  of  JE.  For  here  the  striking 
fact  which  immediately  confronts  us  is,  that  the  parts  of  the 
history  which  are  lacking  in  P  are  precisely  those  which  are 

1  Colenso  saves  himself  a  little  by  borrowing  a  few  connecting  passages 
from  JE  in  the  lives  of  Isaac  and  Joseph,  bat  these  the  later  critics  disallow 
to  the  Elohut. 

•  Soe  above,  p.  220. 

•To  see  how  far  this  "omitting"  theory  is  carried— so  also  with  JE, 
"mutual  mutilations,"  as  Dillmann  calls  them — one  would  require  to  go 
over  the  chapters  in  detail.  See  some  examples  in  Kuenen,  Ilex.  p.  67. 

4  Kuenen  extols  the  "conservatism  "  of  the  redactor,  who  "  scrupulously 
inserts  even  the  minor  fragments  of  P  in  the  places  that  seem  best  to  fit 
them,  when  the  more  detailed  notices  of  tho  older  documents  might  have 
seemed  to  a  less  zealous  discii)le  to  have  rendered  them  superfluous." — Ibid. 
p.  320.  How  then  explain  the  deleting?  This  redactor  figures  in  Kuenen's 
scheme  as  R",  but  it  is  explained  that  he  is  really  "a  collective  body  headed 
by  the  scriU»  who  united  the  two  works,  etc.  .  .  .  For  the  most  part  we 
shall  have  to  club  them  together,  and  may  indicate  them  by  the  single 
letter  R»  "  (p.  316). 


344       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

given  us  in  JE.  The  converse  of  this  is  equally  true,  that 
the  elements  which  are  lacking  in  JE  are  supplied  by  P. 
Thus,  P  alone  records  the  making  of  the  ark  (Gen.  vi.  9-22), 
and  the  ages  and  deaths  of  the  patriarchs.  The  story  of 
Hagar  in  Gen.  xvi.  has  neither  beginning  nor  end  without  P, 
who  alone  mentions  Ishmael's  birth  (vers.  15,  16).1  The 
elements  in  the  narratives  are  thus  materially  united  in.  the 
closest  fashion.  But  the  intimacy  of  the  relation  between  P 
and  JE  admits  of  yet  closer  determination.  So  long  as  the 
Jehovist  was  regarded  as  a  mere  supplementer  of  the  Elohist, 
it  was  impossible  to  assume  any  knowledge  of  his  narrative 
by  the  latter.  Now,  however,  that  the  Priestly  Writer  is 
regarded  as  the  later,  there  is  found  no  difficulty  in 
admitting, — rather,  as  furnishing  a  proof  of  his  posteriority, 
the  fact  is  insisted  on, — not  only  that  the  Priestly  Writer  is 
acquainted  with  JE,  but  that  his  narrative  is  throughout 
parallel  with  the  other.2  The  effect  of  this  change  in  the 
point  of  view,  in  its  bearings  on  the  relations  of  the 
narratives,  seems  even  yet  hardly  to  be  fully  realised.  Not 
merely,  as  formerly  shown,  are  J  and  E  in  the  fullest  sense 
parallel  narratives,  but  P,  in  turn,  is  parallel  with  them. 
"  The  priestly  author,"  says  Kuenen,  "  builds  on  JE  through- 
out."8 "ThatP2  and  JE  run  parallel,  even  in  details,  is 
undeniable ;  and  hence  it  follows  that  they  did  not  spring 
up  independently  of  each  other.  P2  is  either  the  basis  of  JE 
or  an  excerpt  from  it."4  The  latter,  of  course,  is  the 
alternative  he  adopts.5  Wellhausen,  in  language  before 

1  The  same  assumption  is  made  here  about  JE  as  above  about  P,  viz., 
that  in  all  these  cases  JE  had  the  relevant  narrative  in  his  history,  but  R 
has  left  it  out,  and,  for  some  reason,  substituted  P's  (see  above,  p.  343).     It 
is  possible  that  in  some  instances  omissions  may  have  taken  place,  but  they 
are  for  the  most  part  as  problematical  in  J  K  as  in  P. 

2  Guukel  stands  nearly  alone  in  denying  that  P  used  JE  in  Genesis  (cf. 
his  Genesis,  p.  Ixviii),  but  he  admits  that  the  source  of  P  was  one  to  which 
JE  "  was  manifoldly  related."     But  why  then  not  JE,  which  P  must  have 
known  ?    Dillmann  makes  P  dependent  in  part  on  E  (his  oldest  document), 
and  says  of  its  relationship  to   J  :    "  Certainly  the  relationship  in  matter 
between  the  two  is  so  great,  that  of  necessity  one  writing  must  presuppose 
the  other."     He  supposes  P  to  be  dependent  in  part  on  J  or  J's  sources,  but 
J  in  the  main  to  be  dependent  on  P. — Num.-Jos.  pp.  656-57.     The  in- 
security of  such   combinations  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  newer 
criticism  rejects  most  of  them. 

8  Hex.  p.  299.  *  Ibid.  p.  301. 

8  In  this  sense  it  is  allowed  that  P  is  not  independent.  In  an  article  he 
wrote  in  reply  to  Graf,  Kuenen  says:  "We  can  deny  the  independence  of 
the  priestly  passages,  and  at  the  same  time  recognise  them  as  self-subsisting, 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     II.  DOCUMENT     345 

quoted,1  lays  great  stress  on  the  parallelism  and  material 
identity  of  the  narratives.  "  The  Priestly  Code,"  he  tells  us, 
"runs,  as  to  its  historical  thread,  quite  parallel  to  the 
Jehovistic  history  " ;  and,  in  a  note,  "  The  agreement  extends, 
not  only  to  the  thread  of  the  narrative,  but  also  to 
particulars,  and  even  to  expressions."*  Again:  "In  the 
history  of  the  patriarchs  also,  the  outlines  of  the  narrative 
are  the  same  in  Q  (  =  P)  and  in  JE."8  Here,  then,  are  very 
practical  admissions  that  the  substance — and  more  than  the 
substance  4 — of  the  two  narratives  is  the  same,  and  we  have 
seen  how  closely  related  and  interdependent  the  narratives 
are  in  their  present  form.  P,  in  Genesis,  we  have  also  seen, 
is  really  not  a  complete  work,  but  supplies  the  frame  in  which 
the  other  narratives  are  set.  Does  not  the  onus  of  proof 
rest  on  those  who  maintain  that  it  was  ever  intended  to  be 
anything  else?  Is  not  the  hypothesis  which  the  facts  of 
interrelation  and  mutual  dependence  suggest  rather  that  of 
collaboration  in  some  form,  than  of  entirely  independent 
origin  ? 6 

The  principal  proof,  however,  that  P  cannot  be  regarded 
as  an  independent  document  arises  when  the  P  writing  is 
considered  textually — i.e.,  in  its  inseparable  textual  inter- 
weaving with  the  JE  narrative.  This  is  a  subject  of 
sufficient  importance  and  intricacy  to  be  considered  under 
a  separate  heading. 

».«.,  M  fragments  of  a  book  which  once  existed  in  separate  form"  (Thfol. 
Tijd.  Sept  1870).  But  did  itf  Grafs  later  view  on  this  point  may  be 
stated  in  nia  own  words.  He  says  :  "These  narratives  [of  the  Grundsehrtft] 
imply  everywhere  the  connection  of  the  circumstantial  J  narrative  ;  whereas 
they  themselves,  except  a  few  longer  sections,  appear  only  as  notices  more 
or  less  abrupt,  inserted  into  the  narrative  "  (in  Kuenen,  as  above). 

1  See  Chap.  IV.  above,  p.  107. 

1  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  295-96.     Of.  his  illustrations. 

»  Ibid.  p.  318.     Cf.  KauUsch,  above,  p.  342. 

4  It  i.s  interesting  to  note  the  additional  testimony  borne  by  Kuenen 
that  the  Deuteronomic  history  also  consists  of  recensions  of  prophetic  narra- 
tivei,  "in  part  of  more  independent  compositions,  which,  however,  still 
nm  parallel,  in  almost  every  case,  with  JE,  and  are  dependent  on  it."- 
Hex,  pp.  168-69.  The  substantial  agreement  of  the  history  in  the  various 
sources  could  hardly  be  more  strongly  expressed  than  in  the  above 
quotations. 

*  Thia  is  substantially  the  view  taken  by  Klostermann  in  his  Der 
Pentateuch,  pp.  9,  10.  See  Not*  A  on  Klostermann  on  the  Relation  of  JE 
and  P. 


346       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 


III.  TEXTUAL  INTERRELATIONS  OF  THE  PRIESTLY 
WRITING  AND  JE 

The  interweaving  of  P  with  JE  in  the  actual  history 
of  the  Pentateuch  is  so  intimate  that  it  is  only  "by  the  utmost 
critical  violence  that  the  different  elements  can  be  rent 
asunder.  To  illustrate  this  fully  would  carry  us  much 
beyond  our  limits,  but,  the  point  being  crucial,  it  is 
necessary  to  bestow  some  little  pains  on  its  elucidation. 
We  begin  with  the  patriarchal  period  and  the  Book  of 
Genesis ;  then  glance  at  the  Mosaic  period.  The  diffi- 
culties of  the  critical  hypothesis  will  reveal  themselves  in 
both. 

1.  We  look,  first,  at  the  P  and  JE  narratives  in  Genesis. 
The  general  relation  of  P  to  JE  in  this  book,  as  already 
said,  is  that  of  "  framework."  The  following,  in  order  of 
the  book,  are  examples  of  the  closeness  of  the  textual 
relations. 

(1)  With  regard  to  the  beginnings  of  things,  how  con- 
stantly is  it  alleged  that  "  we  have  two  contradictory 
accounts  of  the  creation." l  It  is  certain  that  the  narratives 
in  Gen.  i.-ii.  4  and  chap.  ii.  4  ff.  are  quite  different  in  character 
and  style,  and  view  the  work  of  creation  from  different 
standpoints.  But  they  are  not  "  contradictory  " ;  they  are, 
in  fact,  bound  together  in  the  closest  manner  as  comple- 
mentary. The  second  narrative,  taken  by  itself,  begins 
abruptly,  with  manifest  reference  to  the  first :  "  In  the  day 
that  Jehovah  Elohim  made  earth  and  heaven"  (ver.  4). 
It  is,  in  truth,  a  misnomer  to  speak  of  chap.  ii.  as  an  account 
of  the  "  creation  "  at  all,  in  the  same  sense  as  chap.  i.  It 
contains  no  account  of  the  creation  of  either  earth  or 
heaven,  or  of  the  general  world  of  vegetation ; 2  its  interest 
centres  in  the  making  of  man  and  woman,  and  everything 

1  Cf.  Addis,  Hex.  i.  p.  xlviii ;  Kuencn,  Hex.  p.  38,  etc. 

2  Dillmann  says  here  :  "  We  now  expect  before  or  after  ver.  7,  intimation 
of  the  bringing  forth  of  the  plant  world  and  of  the  finishing  of  the  construc- 
tion of  the  world.     But  nothing  of  the  kind  is  found.     Such  a  gap  can 
scarcely  have  existed  originally.     It  rather  seems  as  if  something  had  been 
left  out  by  R,  either  because  it  appeared  a  needless  repetition  alongside  of 
chap,  i.,  or  because  it  seemed  too  little  in  accordance  with  chap,  i."     (This 
latter  reason  should  have  led  to  the  suppression  of  much  more.) — Genesis, 

K.  116.     What  appears  in  the  narrative  is  simply  the  planting  of  a  garden 
i  Eden  as  an  abode  for  man  (vers.  8,  9). 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     II.  DOCUMENT    347 

in  the  narrative  is  regarded  from  that  point  of  view.1  The 
very  union  of  the  divine  names — in  chaps,  ii.,  iii. — indicates 
a  designed  connection  of  the  two  narratives  which  it  is 
arbitrary  to  refer  to  a  redactor,  instead  of  to  the  original 
composers  of  the  book.2 

We  have  next,  in  P,  the  bare  thread  of  genealogy  in 
chap.  v.  (with,  however,  universal  death)  to  conduct  us  from 
the  creation  to  the  flood,  when  the  earth,  which  God  made 
"very  good"  (chap.  i.  31)  is  found,  without  explanation, 
"  corrupt  before  God,"  and  "  filled  with  violence  " — "  for  all 
flesh  had  corrupted  his  way  upon  the  earth "  (chap.  vi. 
11,  12).  Yet  we  are  asked  to  believe  that  P,  who  is 
admittedly  acquainted  with  the  JE  history,  "  builds  "  upon 
it,  and  produces  a  narrative  "  parallel "  with  it,  "  knows 
nothing  "  of  a  fall.8  Much  more  natural  is  the  supposition 
that  P,  who  furnishes  the  "  framework "  for  JE,  pre- 
supposes the  JE  narrative  which  it  enshrines,  and  which 
in  Gen.  vi.  5-7  contains  precisely  similar  intimations  of  the 
corruption  of  mankind — proceeding  from  the  fall.  Here 
for  once  we  have  Wellhausen  as  an  ally.  "  In  JE,"  he 
says,  "  the  flood  is  well  led  up  to ;  in  Q  [  =  P]  we  should  be 
inclined  to  ask  in  surprise  how  the  earth  has  come  all  at 
once  to  be  so  corrupted,  after  being  in  the  best  of  order,  did 
we  not  know  it  from  JE."4  A  fact  which  shows  quite 
clearly  how  far  P  is  from  being  complete,  and  how  necessary 
JE  is  to  its  right  understanding. 

(2)  The  story  of  the  flood  (Gen.  vi.-ix.),  which  comes 
next,  is  the  classical  proof  of  the  distinction  of  the 

1  On  the  age  and  origin  of  these  histories,  see  Chap.  XI.  pp.  402  ff. 

*  See  above,  pp.   226-27.     We  have  here  the  usual  variety  of  critical 
theories.     Most  ascribe  the  combination  to  the  redactor  ;  Reuss  postulates  a 
special  document  distinct  from  J  and  P  ;  Budde  and  Gunkel  suppose  a  com- 
bination of  two  documents,  one  using  Jehovah,  the  other  Klohiin,  etc. 

*  Thus,  e.g.,  Carpenter :  "  He  knows  no  Eden,  he  relates  no  temptation, 
he  does  not  seek  to  explain  the  stern  conditions  of  human  labour  or  suffer- 
ing."— Hex.  i.  p.   122.     But  a  few  sentences  further  on  we  read  :   "The 
reader  learns  with  surprise  in  chap.  vi.  11  that  corruption  and  violence  filled 
the  earth."      And  on  p.  132 :      If  the  tolcdhoth  sections  do  not  describe 
the  origin  of  evil  and  the  entry  of  sin  and  suffering,  they  are  not  indifferent 
to  them,  rather  does  the  method  of  G«n.  v.  presuppose  them,  and  chap. 
TI.  13  record  their  cousi-qiieiic.es."     Which  destroys  the  "  knows  nothing.' 

*  Hiit.  of  Israel,  p.  310.     Wellhausen  finds  many  other  indications  of 
dependence  of  P  on  JE.     E.g.,  "If  in  spite  of  this  lie  (the  first  man)  is 
called  simply  Adam  (Gen.  v.  2),  as  if  that  were  his  proper  name,  the  only 
way  to  account  for  this  is  to  suppose  a  reminiscence  of  Gen.  ii.,  iii.,  etc. 
(p.  308). 


348       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

two  sources  P  and  J ;  but  we  must  claim  it  also  as  an 
illustration  of  the  impossibility  of  separating  these  elements 
in  the  narrative  into  two  independent  histories.  The  sub- 
stance of  the  story  is  allowed  to  be  the  same  in  both.  "  In 
chaps,  vii.,  viii.,"  Kuenen  says, "  two  almost  parallel  narratives 
are  combined  into  a  single  whole."1  Since  the  discovery 
of  the  Babylonian  account  of  the  deluge,  it  is  recognised 
that  both  writers  drew  from  very  old  sources,2  and,  more- 
over, that  it  needs  both  J  and  P  to  yield  the  complete 
parallel  to  the  old  Chaldean  version.  P,  e.g.,  in  Genesis, 
gives  the  measurements  of  the  ark,  but  lacks  the  sending 
out  of  the  birds — an  essential  feature  in  the  Babylonian 
story.  J  has  the  birds,  and  also  the  sacrifice  of  Noah, 
which  P,  again,  wants.3  In  not  a  few  passages  the  criteria 
curiously  intermingle,  and  the  services  of  the  redactor  have 
to  be  called  freely  into  requisition  to  disentangle  them. 
E.g.,  in  chaps.  viL  7-10,  23,  viii  1,  2,  where  there  is  clearly 
literary  fusion  of  some  kind.4  Above  all,  the  parts  of  the 
narrative  fit  into  each  other  in  a  way  that  makes  it  im- 
possible to  separate  them.  We  have  just  seen  how  the 
"  corruption"  of  chap.  vi.  11,  12  (P)  implies  the  Jehovistic 
story  of  the  fall.  From  the  sudden  mention  of  Noah  in 
chap.  vi.  8  the  J  story  passes  abruptly  to  chap.  vii.  1 :  "  And 
Jehovah  said  unto  Noah,  Come  thou  and  all  thy  house  into 
the  ark."  But  it  is  P  who  mentions  Noah's  sons,  and 
narrates  the  building  of  the  ark  (chap.  vi.  6-22).  The 
Jehovistic  clause, "  And  Jehovah  shut  him  in"  (chap.  vii.  16), 
stands  isolated  if  taken  from  the  P  connection  in  which  it 
stands.  J,  as  stated,  records  Noah's  sacrifice  (chap.  viii.  20), 
but  tells  us  nothing  of  his  going  out  of  the  ark  That  is 
left  for  P  (vers.  15-19). 

It  is  easy,  as  before,  to  assert  that  all  these  lacking  parts 

1  Hex.  p.  67.     Cf.  Wellhausen,  p.  296. 
3  On  age,  see  below,  Chap.  XL  p.  404. 

3  "Noah  offers  no  sacrifice,"  says  Carpenter. — Hex.  i.  p.  123.     But  this 
is  really  a  proof  of  the  unity  of  the  history,  for  the  sacrifice — an  essential 
part  of  the  Babylonian  story,  which  P  must  have  known—is  found  in  J. 

4  Kuenen  says  that  in  chaps,  vii.,  viii.  the  narratives  "  are  combined  into 
a  single  whole,  and  consequently  the  analysis  does  not  always  yield  very 
certain  results.     We  find  distinct  traces  of  P  in  chaps,  vii.  6,  7,  8,  9,  11,  13, 
14,  15,   16a,   18-21  ;  viii.   1,  2a,  2-5,  13-19.     But  the  verses  have  been 
worked  over  by  some  later  hand.  ...  It  is  evident  from  these  indications 
that  when  the  two  texts  were  woven  together  a  certain  process  of  assimila- 
tion took  place." — Hex.  p.  67. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     II.  DOCUMENT     349 

of  J  and  P  were  originally  present,  but  were  omitted  by 
the  redactor,  but  it  is  impossible  to  prove  it,  and  the 
hypothesis  is  superfluous,  because  the  missing  parts  are 
there  in  the  other  narrative.  Besides,  what  in  that  case 
becomes  of  the  "completeness"  of  the  P  narrative?  If 
"omission"  is  postulated  to  the  extent  required,  the  two 
narratives  become  simply  duplicates,  and  the  ground  for 
the  assertion  that  P  "knows  nothing"  of  this  or  that  is 
destroyed.  If  there  has  been  replacement  of  parts,  as 
here  and  there  is  not  impossible,  it  may  be  more  simply 
conceived  as  the  result  of  one  writer  collaborating  with 
another,  or  working  upon,  and  in  parts  re-writing,  the 
materials  furnished  him  by  another,  in  view  of  a  plan,  and 
with  a  common  aim. 

Against  this  view  of  the  unity  of  the  narrative,  it  is 
customary  to  urge  the  repetitions  and  alleged  inconsistencies 
of  the  several  parts.  On  this  it  may  suffice  at  present  to 
observe  that  the  P  writer  does  not  shun  repetitions,  even  of 
his  own  statements,  where  these  serve  his  purpose, — they 
are  in  fact  a  mark  of  his  style,1 — and  that  at  least  the 
greater  number  of  the  inconsistencies  arise  from  the 
very  evil  of  the  hypothesis  we  are  criticising  —  the 
pitting  of  one  part  of  the  narrative  against  another  as  if 
each  was  complete  in  itself.*  The  most  plausible  example 
in  the  present  case  is  the  alleged  discrepancy  as  to  the 
duration  of  the  flood.  J's  numbers,  it  is  said,  yield  a  much 
shorter  duration  for  the  flood  (40  +  21  =  61  days)  than  the 
year  and  eleven  days  assigned  to  it  by  P.8  It  is  not 
explained  how  P,  with  the  J  narrative  before  him,  should 
gratuitously  invent  numbers  hopelessly  at  variance  with 

1  The  same  applies  to  J,  though  not  to  so  great  an  extent.  P  repeats 
freely  where  emphasis  is  wanted,  where  he  recapitulates,  where  he  com- 
mences a  new  section,  etc.  E-g-,  the  birth  of  Noah's  sons  and  their  names 
are  several  times  repeated  (chaps,  v.  32,  vi.  10,  iz.  19,  20,  x.  1).  The 
corruption  of  the  earth  is  thrice  affirmed  in  chap.  vi.  11,  12  ;  the  entrance 
into  the  ark  is  thrice  mentioned  in  one  section  (chap.  vii.  13,  15,  16),  etc. 
J  repeats  the  "repenting"  of  Jehovah  (chap.  vi.  6,  7). 

*  E.y.,  it  is  not  a  real  contradiction  if  in  one  place  (Gen.  vi.  19,  20)  the 
general  rule  is  laid  down  that  the  animals  shall  enter  in  pairs  ("male  and 
female"),  niul  in  another  (chap.  vii.  2,  3)  that  clean  beasts  and  fowls  shall 
go  in  by  sevt'iis  (also  "  male  and  female").  Of.  chap.  vii.  8,  9,  14.  Both 
statements  may  have  been  found  in  fie  old  sources. 

s  Cf.  I >illiii.uiii,  Driver,  etc.  Delitzsch  concedes  the  discrepancy,  un- 
necessarily, as  we  think.  The  unity  of  the  narrative  is  upheld  by  Kuhler, 
Bib.  GeschicJUe,  i.  pp.  58-59. 


350       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

his  authority  and  with  the  common  tradition.  But  if  the 
narrative  be  taken  as  a  whole  there  need  be  no  discrepancy. 
P's  longer  period  is  of  itself  more  in  keeping  with  the 
magnitude  of  the  catastrophe,  even  as  described  by  J;  and 
the  assumption  of  the  critics  that  J  meant  to  confine  the 
actual  flood  within  forty  days  can  be  shown  by  the  text 
itself  to  be  unwarrantable.  For  (1)  forty  days  is  expressly 
given  by  J  as  the  period  when  "  the  rain  was  upon  the 
earth,"  i.e.,  when  the  cataclysm  was  in  process  (chap.  vii. 
12,  17);  and  (2)  is  separated  from  a  second  forty  days 
(chap.  viii.  6)  by  the  mention  of  an  interval  of  gradual  sub- 
sidence of  the  waters — "  the  waters  returned  from  off  the 
earth  continually  "  (chap.  viii.  2,  3  ;  also  J) — which  P  in  the 
same  verse  dates  at  one  hundred  and  fifty  days.  J's  second 
forty  days,  therefore,  with  the  three  weeks  spent  in  sending 
out  the  birds,  equate  with  P's  interval  of  two  months 
between  chap.  viii.  5  and  chap.  viii.  13,  which  covers  the 
same  period,  and  the  discrepancy  disappears.1 

In  further  illustration  of  the  divisive  methods  employed 
in  this  part  of  the  history,  it  may  be  mentioned  that 
Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  Budde,  Gunkel,  etc.,  distinguish  a 
J1  and  J2,  and  suppose  that  J1  (cf.  Gen.  iv.  16-24)  had 
no  knowledge  of  a  flood,  which,  therefore,  it  is  held,  does 
not  belong  to  the  oldest  tradition ;  neither  does  Gen.  xi. 
1-9  look  back,  it  is  said,  to  a  flood.2  It  is  even  contended 
that  in  Gen.  ix.  18-27  the  names  of  the  three  sons  of  Noah 
must  have  been  originally  Shem,  Japheth,  and  Canaan — 
this  on  the  ground  that  in  ver.  25  the  curse  is  pronounced 
on  Canaan 3 — a  notion  which,  in  its  direct  defiance  of  the 
text,  Delitzsch  justly  cites  as  "  a  specimen  of  what 
emulation  in  the  art  of  severing  can  accomplish."4 

1  The  critics  are  not  agreed  whether  J  has  two  periods  of  forty  days,  or 
only  one  ;  and  differ,  besiaes,  in  many  details  of  the  analysis.   ,Kautzsch  and 
Socin,  Budde,  etc.,  even  give  chap.  vii.  17a — "the  flood  was  forty  days  upon 
the  earth  " — to  P,  but  strike  out  the  forty  days.     Thus  discrepancies  are 
made. 

2  Cf.    in  reply   Kbnig,   Einleit.    pp.    198-99.      If  Gen.    ix.   18,    19  is 
allowed  to  J1,  as  by  Addis,  etc.,  then  the  overspreading  of  the  earth  from 
the  sons  of  Noah  is  directly  affirmed.     Others  give  these  verses  to  P. 

3  Kautzsch  says  positively:   "At  Gen.  ix.  20  ff.  the  sons  of  Noah,  who 
still  dwell  with  him  in  one  tent,  are  called  in  t!ie  original  text  Shcm, 
Japheth,  and  Canaan." — Lit.  of  O.T.,  p.  38.    The  "  original  text "  states  tlie 
precise  contrary  (vers.  18,  22),  only  the  clauses  naming  Ham  are  expunged 
as  interpolations.     Dillmann,  Delitzsch,  Kb'nig,  etc.,  reject  the  theory. 

*  Genesis,  i.  p.  291. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     II.  DOCUMENT    351 

(3)  The  critics  have  admittedly  difficulty  in   dividing 
up  the  table  of  nations  in  Gen.  x.     "  Such  being  the  relation 
of  the  two  documents,"  comments  Kuenen,  "it  is  easy  to 
understand  that  chap.  x.  (always  excepting  vers.  8-12)  has 
been  included  in  P  by  some  critics,  and  excluded  from  it 
by  others."  *    Tuch,  Hupfeld,  and  Kayser  gave  the  chapter 
to  J ;  Noldeke,  with  most  critics  of  his  time,  to  P  (ex- 
cepting vers.  8-11);   most  critics  now  divide  it  between 
J  and  P.     But  the  J  part,  as  usual,  begins  abruptly  at 
ver.  8 ;  has  no  heading  for  the  descendants  of  Ham ;  omits 
those  of  Japheth  altogether ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  alone 
gives  the  descendants  of  Mizraim  and  Canaan,  previously 
mentioned  by  P  (ver.  6).     The  entire  table  is  needed  to 
restore  the  unity.     An  incidental  proof  of  the  unity  is  the 
fact  that  it  is  constructed  on   the  principle  of  seventy 
names. 

(4)  We   pass   to   the   history   of   the  patriarchs,  some 
points  in  which   have    already   been    touched    on.      The 
different  parts  of  this  history  are  again  found  to  be  in- 
separably connected  textually.     Difficulties  begin  with  the 
life  of  Abraham.     After  many  variations  of  opinion,  the 
critics  have  settled  down  to  give  Gen.  XL  28-30  to  J,  and 
ver.  27,  31,  and  32  to  P  ;  beyond  this  only  chaps,  xii.  46,  5, 
and  xiii.  6,  116,  12  are  assigned  to  P  in  chaps,  xii.,  xiii. 
But  this  yields  some  remarkable  results.     In  chap.  XL  28, 
the  J  story  begins  quite  abruptly,  without  telling  us  who 
Terah,  Haran,  Abram,  and  Nahor  are ;  i.e.,  it  needs  ver.  27 
for  its  explanation.    The  residence  of  the  family  is  placed 
by  J  in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  (elsewhere  given  as  a  P  mark), 
and  nothing  is  related  of  the  migration  to  Haran  (cf.  P, 
vers.  31,  32).    Yet  this  migration  is  apparently  assumed 
in  the  call  to  Abraham  in  Gen.  xiL  l.s     In  ver.  6,  Abraham 
is  said  to  have  "passed  through  the  land  into  the  place 
of  Sichem,"  but  we  are  not  told  wfuit  land.     It  is  P  alone 
who  tells  of  his  departure  from  Haran,  and  coming  to  tho 
land  of  Canaan  (ver.  4b,  5).     But   this  very  fragment  in 
P  assumes  the  departure  from  Haran  as  a  thing  known 
(ver.  46),  and  so  needs  the  first  part  of  the  verse,  given  to 
J.     In  other  words,  the  story,  as   it  stands,  is  a  unity ; 
divided,  its  connection  is  destroyed. 

Gen.  xiv.  —the  Chedorlaomer  expedition  — is,  it  is  well 
1  Hex.  p.  67.  l  See  above,  Chap.  IV.  p.  108. 


352       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

known,  a  literary  crux ;  so  unlike  is  it  to  P,  yet  so  many 
P  marks  are  found  in  it.1  As  P  is  made  post-exilian,  our 
critics  are  under  the  necessity  of  putting  this  chapter  still 
later.2  On  the  very  different  verdict  to  which  archaeology 
points,  we  shall  speak  in  next  chapter.3  In  the  Hagar 
episode,  chap,  xvi.,  instructive  examples  of  critical  division 
are  furnished.  The  first  half  of  ver.  1,  together  with  ver.  3, 
is  given  to  P ;  then  the  J  part  begins  without  explanation — 
"  And  she  had  an  handmaid,  an  Egyptian,  whose  name  was 
Hagar."  The  promise  of  Ishmael  is  given  in  J  (ver.  11); 
it  is  left  for  P  to  record  his  birth  (vers.  16,  17).4  It  is  the 
"dry  pedant"  P  who  relates  Abraham's  touching  inter- 
cession for  Ishmael  (chap.  xvii.  18) ;  afterwards,  however, 
several  chapters  later,  J,  who  was  silent  on  the  birth,  suddenly 
introduces  Ishmael  as  a  grown  lad,  mocking  Isaac  (chap.  xxi. 
9).  In  chaps,  xviii.  to  xx.  the  solitary  indication  of  P  is  the 
isolated  verse,  chap.  xix.  29,  which  presupposes  the  destruction 
of  the  cities  of  the  plain — intelligible,  perhaps,  if  regarded 
as  a  recapitulatory  statement,  intended  to  introduce  the 
succeeding  narrative,  but  utterly  superfluous  as  the  in- 
sertion of  a  redactor.5  Chap.  xxi.  1-5  is  again  a  fine  specimen 
of  critical  dissection.  The  second  half  of  ver.  1  is  given  to 
P,  despite  the  fact  that  Jehovah  occurs  in  it  (similarly  in 
chap.  xvii.  1)  ;  ver.  2  is  likewise  split  between  J  and  P. 
P's  narrative,  as  stated  earlier,  after  the  introduction 

1"Gen.  xiv.  is  admitted  on  every  hand,"  says  Carpenter,  "to  show 
many  peculiarities.  .  .  .  The  margins  show  affinities  of  style  with  both 
J  and  P.  ...  These  phenomena  would  point  to  a  writer  acquainted  with 
the  linguistic  usage  of  both  J  and  P." — Hex.  i.  pp.  155-56.  Addis  writes  : 
"  The  unknown  author  must  have  read  the  Pentateuch  much  as  we  have  it. 
His  language,  as  shown  above,  betrays  the  influence  of  P,  while  his  facts 
are  partly  drawn  from  the  Jahvist.  He  must  have  belonged  to  Judah,  for 
he  exalts  the  sanctuary  of  Jerusalem,  and  its  sacred  right  to  tithes"  ! — 
Hex.  ii.  p.  212.  Cf.  Kueuen,  Hex.  p.  324. 

*  Professor  Bennett  says  "  the  narrative  may  be  partly  based  on  information 
derived  from  Babylon,  possibly  by  Jews  of  the  Captivity." — Genesis,  p.  19. 

8  See  below,  pp.  410  ff.  The  revolutionary  effects  of  admitting  an  early 
date  of  composition  for  this  chapter  are  evident  from  the  above. 

4  See  above,  p.  344. 

B  Coleuso,  arguing  against  Kuenen,  says:  "  Is  it  credible  that  after  the 
long  circumstantial  account  of  Jehovah's  visit  to  Abraham,  and  conversation 
with  him,  and  of  Lot's  being  rescued  out  of  Sodom  in  chap,  xviii.  1-xix.  28, 
a  later  writer  would  think  it  necessary  to  insert  the  perfectly  superfluous 
statement  in  chap.  xix.  29  ?  " — Pent.  Pt.  vi.  App.  p.  121.  Carpenter  says : 
"When  th«  'overthrow'  is  mentioned  in  chap.  xix.  29,  it  is  apparently 
assumed  that  its  cause  is  known." — Hex.  i.  p.  123.  But  why  then  men- 
tion it ! 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     II.  DOCUMENT    353 

of  the  E  writer,  becomes  largely  a  blank.  Apart  from  Gen. 
xxiii.  and  later  references  to  the  same  (chaps,  xlix.  29  ff., 
1.  12,  13)  ;J  a  few  other  incidents  (chaps,  xxvii.  46-xxviii. 
9;  xxxv.  9-15;  cf.  xlvii.  6-11;  xlviii.  3-7);  and  some 
genealogies  and  lists,  it  is  absolutely  confined,  assuming 
that  even  they  belong  to  it,  to  such  disconnected  verses, 
or  parts  of  verses,  as  those  formerly  enumerated — "And 
Isaac  was  threescore  years  when  she  bare  them  "  (chap.  xxv. 
266),  Zilpah  and  Bilhah  given  as  handmaids  (chap.  xxix.  24, 
29), "  And  all  his  goods  that  he  had  gotten,  the  cattle  of 
his  getting,"  etc.  (chap.  xxxi.  18),  "  And  Joseph  was  thirty 
years  old  when  he  stood  before  Pharaoh"  (chap.  xli.  46). 
Chap,  xxxiv. — the  story  of  Dinah — is  an  exception,  for  here 
a  P  narrative  is  blended  with  a  JE  one,  but  so  intimately, 
and  with  such  peculiarities  of  style,  that  the  critics  do 
not  well  know  what  to  make  of  it,  and  are  at  sixes  and 
sevens  in  their  analysis.2  A  similar  perplexity  attaches 
to  the  list  of  those  descending  to  Egypt  in  chaps,  xlvi.  8-27. 
"  The  general  evidence,"  we  are  told,  "  points  to  a  writer 
familiar  with  P,  but  also  acquainted  with  other  documents 
besides."3  Wellhausen,  the  Oxford  analysts,  and  others, 
accordingly,  treat  the  P  parts  of  both  chaps,  xxxiv.  and 
xlvi.  8-27,  as  belonging  to  a  later  and  secondary  stratum. 
Other  phenomena  in  Genesis,  e.g.,  the  fact  that  it  is  P 
alone  who  records  the  deaths  of  the  patriarchs,  have  already 
been  noticed. 

It  is  needless  to  do  more  than  draw  attention  to  the 
results  which  thus  far  stand  out  clear  from  our  review. 
They  are:  (1)  that  the  book,  as  we  have  it,  is  a  unity;  (2) 
that  the  unity  is  destroyed  by  breaking  it  up  into  separately 
existing  JE  and  P  documents;  (3)  that  the  unity  is  too 
close  to  be  the  work  of  a  redactor  piecing  together  such 
separate  documents;  (4)  that  to  secure  the  unity  we  do 
not  need  to  go  beyond  the  book  we  have,  i.e.,  what  P  lacks, 

1  Colenso,  however,  gives  chap.  1.  12  to  J,  and  bases  an  argument  on  it 
(Pent.  Pt.  vi.,  App.  p.  122). 

*  The  Oxford  writers  say  of  this  chapter  :  "The  linguistic  affinities  of 
the  first  story  clearly  connects  it  with  J.  .  .  .  Equally  clearly  the  various 
marks  in  the  second  story  bring  it  within  the  scope  of  P.  But  it  is  so 
different  in  kind  from  P's  other  narratives  of  the  patriarchal  age,  as  to  make 
it  highly  improbable  that  it  ever  belonged  to  the  Toledholh-book  ...  as 
the  interlacing  is  very  close  the  assignment  of  some  passages  must  be 
doubtful." — Hex.  ii.  pp.  52-53. 

1  Oxford  Hex.  ii.  p.  72  :  on  Gen.  xlri.  8  ff.  see  below,  pp.  866  S. 

•3 


354       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

J  supplies,  and  rice  versa.  In  brief,  whatever  the  number 
of  pens  employed,  the  phenomena  would  seem  to  point,  not 
to  late  irresponsible  redaction,  but  to  singleness  of  plan,  and 
co-operation  of  effort,  in  the  original  production. 

2.  When  we  pass  from  the  patriarchal  to  the  Mosaic 
period,  though  P  no  longer  possesses  the  marked  character 
of  "  framework "  which  it  had  in  the  Book  of  Genesis,  but 
appears  rather  as  co-ordinate  with  JE,  and  even,  in  the 
legislative  parts,  as  an  inserted  content,  we  discover  that  the 
union  of  narratives  is  not  less  close  than  in  the  earlier  book, 
and  the  impossibility  of  separating  them  into  independent 
documents  equally  great. 

(1)  Not  much  is  given  to  P  in  Exodus  before  chap,  vi., 
but  what  little  is  given  is  bound  up  inseparably  with  its 
JE  context.  From  the  mention,  e.g.,  of  the  increase  and 
prosperity  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt  (chap.  i.  7),  P  passes 
abruptly  to  their  bondage  (vers.  13,  14),  and  the  intervening 
verses  are  required  to  give  the  explanation.  The  language 
used  in  chap.  ii.  23-25  (P)— "  cry,"  "  heard,"  "  saw,"  "  knew  " 
(in  Heb.) — has  its  verbal  counterpart  in  chap.  iii.  7  (J).1  In 
chap.  vi.  2,  the  narrative  of  the  revelation  of  the  name' 
begins  with  the  words,  "  And  God  spake  unto  Moses  " ;  but 
nothing  has  yet  been  said  in  P  of  either  Moses  or  Aaron.2 
The  information  necessary  is  supplied  by  JE.  Chap.  vi.  itself 
presents  many  peculiarities,  with  traces  of  J,  which  are 
a  perplexity  to  the  critics.3  Vers.  13-20  of  this  chapter, 
embracing  the  genealogy,  are  roundly  declared  to  be  a 
" later  amalgam,"4  or  probably  " an  insertion  by  a  very  late 
hand."6  Then  follow  in  chaps.  vii.-xii.,  the  narratives  of 

1  Colenso,  accordingly,  with  his  view  of  the  earlier  date  of  the  Elohist, 
sees  in  chap.  iii.  7  (and  in  Deut.  xxvi.  7)  a  "  plain  allusion  "  to  chap.  ii.  23- 
25.     It  should  be  noticed  also  that  chap.  ii.  24  alludes  to  God's  covenant 
with  Isaac,  mentioned  only  by  J  (Gen.  xxvi.  2-5,  24). 

2  To  obviate    this    difficulty  many   ingenious  methods  are  emplo\  i-d 
(assumed  omissions,  transpositions,  etc.),  which  in  other  hands  would  be 
described  as  "  harmonistic  expedients." 

'*  Cf.  Oxford  Hexateuch  and  Addis,  in  loc. 

*  Oxford  Hex.  ii.  p.  87. 

8  Addis,  Hex.  ii.  p.  236  ;  so  Kuenen.  Van  Hoonacker  points  out  an 
interesting  harmony  between  this  table  and  the  JE  history.  In  ver.  23 
Nadab  and  Abihu  are  mentioned  as  the  two  eldest  sons  of  Aaron.  The 
names  recur  in  Ex.  xxiv.  9  (J  K).  Further,  P  relates  how  these  two  were 
destroyed  for  the  sin  of  offering  strange  fire  (Lev.  x.  1  ft".).  In  perfect 
harmony  with  this  the  line  of  Aaron  is  viewed  in  the.  historical  books  as 
continued  in  descent  from  the  remaining  sons,  Eleazar  and  Ithamar  (ver. 
23),  and  Nadab  and  Abihn  are  no  more  heard  of. — Le  Saccrdoce,  pp.  138-89. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WHITING.     II.  DOCUMENT    355 

the  plagues,  about  which  many  difficulties  are  raised.  Not 
reckoning  the  death  of  the  firstborn,  P,  it  is  said,  knows  only 
of  four  of  the  plagues ;  JE  only  of  seven.  Other  differences 
are  pointed  out  In  P  the  miracles  are  wrought  by  Aaron 
and  his  rod ;  in  JE,  either  without  human  instrumentality 
(J),  or  by  the  agency  of  Moses  and  his  rod  (E).1  It  may  readily 
be  shown,  however,  that  these  differences  are  greatly  over- 
driven, where  they  do  not  turn  round  into  a  new  proof  of 
the  unity  of  the  narrative.  It  is  the  case,  as  stated,  that 
JE  has  seven  of  the  plagues,  or,  including  the  firstborn,  eight ; 
while  P  has  only  two  peculiar  to  himself  (lice  and  boils). 
But  it  results  from  the  new  form  of  the  critical  hypothesis 
that  P  cannot  have  been  ignorant  of  those  recorded  in  JE; 
therefore,  cannot  have  intended  to  ignore  or  contradict 
them.8  Accordingly,  where  the  narratives  touch,  they  are 
closely  interwoven.  In  the  plague  of  frogs,  for  instance,  J 
records  the  threatening  (chap.  viii.  i-4),  but  P  narrates  the 
execution  of  the  threat  (vers.  5-7).  Without  P  this  part  of 
the  story  would  be  a  blank.  Conversely,  J  alone  narrates 
the  judgment  on  the  firstborn  (chap.  xii.  29,  30),  which  is 
announced  in  the  passover  law  of  P  (ver.  12),  but  is  not 
described  by  P.  This  further  curious  result  follows  from 
the  critical  partition,  that,  while  in  P  Aaron  is  appointed  to 
be  a  prophet  to  Moses,  and  to  speak  for  him  to  Pharaoh 
(chap.  vii.  1,  2),  in  none  of  the  P  sections  does  either  Moses 
or  Aaron  ever  utter  a  word.  All  the  speaking  is  done  in 
JE.  As  respects  the  mode  of  working  the  miracles,  it  is 
not  the  case  that  P  invariably  represents  Aaron  as  perform- 
ing the  wonders  with  his  rod ;  in  the  plague  of  boils  (one 
peculiar  to  P),  Moses  is  the  agent  (chap.  ix.  10),  and  in  the 
destruction  of  the  firstborn  Jehovah  Himself  executes  the 
judgment  (chap.  xii.  12).  But  in  JE  also,  even  where  the 
fact  is  not  expressly  stated  (as  in  P),  we  are  entitled  to 
assume  that  the  same  rule  applies  to  the  acting  as  to  the 
speaking,  viz.,  that  Aaron  is  regarded  as  the  agent  of 
Moses.9  This,  indeed,  is  the  rule  laid  down  in  JE  itself. 


1  This  again  is  made  a  basis  of  distinction  as  between  J  and  E,  and  fresh 
inconsistencies  are  evolved. 

1  On  the  plagues,  cf.  Kohler,  Bib.  Getch.  i.  pp.  185-86. 

*  It  is  to  be  observed  that  in  Ex.  iv.  2-5  (Jh)  Muses  receives  the  sign  of 
the  rod  changed  into  a  serpent  to  be,  with  other  wouuers,  displayed  before 
Pharaoh  (vers.  17, 21) ;  but  in  chap.  vii.  8  if.  (P),  Aaron  performs  the  wonder 


356       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

Thus  in  chap.  iv.  30  (J)  we  read :  "  Aaron  spake  all  the  words 
which  Jehovah  had  spoken  unto  Moses,  and  did  the  signs 
in  the  sight  of  the  people  " ;  and  in  chap.  xi.  10  (E) :  "  And 
Moses  and  Aaron  did  all  these  wonders  before  Pharaoh." 
The  two  are  regularly  conjoined  throughout  the  history.1 

(2)  The  narratives  of  the  wilderness  journeyifigs  show 
even  closer  interweaving  than  those  of  the  Exodus ;  but  we 
shall  content  ourselves  with  two  typical  instances  from  the 
Book  of  Numbers,  viz.,  the  mission  of  the  spies  (chaps,  xrii., 
xiv.),  and  the  rebellion  of  Korah  (chap.  xvi.).  These  have 
already  been  before  us  in  connection  with  Deuteronomy ;  * 
it  is  desirable  now  to  look  at  them  from  the  point  of  view 
of  P.  There  are  evidences,  we  think,  of  distinct  sources  in 
these  narratives,  but  the  histories,  as  we  have  them,  are 
nevertheless  firmly-compacted  and  inseparable  wholes. 

First,  as  respects  the  mission  of  the  spies,  it  is  admitted 
that  the  narratives  we  have  to  deal  with  are  substantially 
parallel,  but  it  is  held,  as  before  seen,  that  they  conflict  in 
several  important  particulars.  Thus  P  makes  the  spies 
traverse  the  whole  land,  in  JE  they  go  only  as  far  as 
Eshcol,  near  Hebron ;  P  includes  Joshua  with  Caleb  among 
the  spies,  JE  knows  only  of  Caleb ;  P  makes  the  spies  bring 
up  an  evil  report  of  the  country,  but  says  nothing  of  the 
inhabitants,  while  in  JE  the  explorers  describe  the  land  as 
fruitful,  but  give  terrifying  accounts  of  the  inhabitants. 
But  now,  to  make  out  these  discrepancies,  which  would 
hardly  occur  to  the  reader  of  the  story  as  it  stands,  the 
narrative  has  first  of  all  to  be  torn  to  shreds.8  The  JE 
contribution,  e.g.,  begins  in  the  middle  of  a  verse :  "  And 
said  unto  them,  Get  you  up  this  way  by  the  South  "  (chap, 
xiii.  17&);  its  commencement  is  supposed  to  be  lost.  But 
the  proper  commencement  is  there  in  P,  with  his  list  of  the 
spies,  if  we  will  only  accept  it.  Again,  the  second  half  of 
ver.  21  is  singled  out,4  and  given  to  P,  with  the  result  that 
JE  reads :  "  So  they  went  up,  and  they  went  up  by  the 
South"  (vers.  21a,  22).  But  this  now  is  an  obvious 

for  Moses.  So  the  threat  of  the  frogs  (J)  is  executed  through  Aaron  (P)  in 
c  ap.  viii. 

1  Chs.  v.  1,  4,  20  ;  viii.  5,  12,  25  ;  ix.  27  ;  x.  3,  8,  16,  etc. 

1  See  above,  pp.  279  ff. 

*  We  follow  the  analysis  of  the  Oxford  Hexateuck,  which  agrees  in  most 
points  with  that  of  Dillmann,  Wellhausen,  etc. 

4  Or  the  whole  verse  according  to  others. 


THE  IMIIESTLV  \YKITING.     II.  DOCUMENT     357 

" doublet,"  and  forms  the  basis  of  a  new  division  l»et  .\vr.n 
J  and  E  (but  what  of  the  sense  of  the  redactor,  who  so 
united  them  ?).  Similarly,  the  first  half  of  ver.  26  is  given 
to  P,  and  the  second  half  to  JE,  though  the  connection  is 
close,  and  the  second  half  has  a  marked  P  phrase.1  The 
way  is  now  clear  for  declaring  that  JE  knows  nothing  of  a 
searching  of  the  whole  land.  Yet  it  seems  very  evident  to 
the  unprejudiced  reader  that,  both  in  the  commission  to  the 
searchers  (vers.  17-20),  and  in  the  report  they  bring  (vers. 
27-29),  in  JE  itself,  an  exploration  of  the  whole  country  is 
implied.  We  go  on  to  chap,  xiv.,  the  first  verse  in  which  is 
divided  up  among  three  writers:  "And  all  the  congregation 
lifted  up  their  voice  "  (P),  "and  cried  "  (E),2  "  and  the  people 
wept  that  night "  (J).  In  P,  Addis  tells  us,  "  no  mention 
is  made  of  the  inhabitants,  who  are  indeed  treited  as 
non-existent " (!) 3 — as  if  this  absurdity  was  not  of  itself 
sufficient  to  condemn  his  scheme.  But  this,  like  P's  ignor- 
ance of  the  fruitf ulness  of  the  land,  disproved  by  Caleb's 
words  in  ver.  7,  is  only  made  out  by  separating  vers.  8,  9 
from  their  close  connection  with  ver.  7 — reserving  for  P 
only  the  words  in  the  middle :  "  only  rebel  not  ye  against 
Jehovah."  Even  the  allegation  that  JE  knows  nothing  of 
Joshua  as  one  of  the  spies,  seems,  apart  from  its  connection 
with  the  list  in  chap.  xiii.  1-6,  to  break  down  on  examination. 
Most  critics  are  now  disposed  to  assign  chap.  xiv.  30-33  to  J, 
or  a  related  writer,4  and  in  it  Caleb  and  Joshua  are  united. 
It  happens  also  that  we  have  yet  another  rehearsal  of  this 
mission  in  Num.  xxxii.  7  ft0. — a  section  admittedly  based  on 
JE;6  and  there,  too,  the  names  occur  in  like  connection 

1  "Unto  all  the  conyrrffa(ion" — handed  over  to  a  redactor. 

1  The  second  verb  changes  to  masc.  plur.  "they  cried,"  from  the  fern, 
sing,  of  first  clause.  But  thoughts  are  not  always  rigully  bound  to 
grammar. 

•  Ilex,  ii   p.  403. 

4  Cf.  Dillinann  (Num.-Jos.  pp.  89,  78  ;  J  in  contradistinction  from  E) ; 
Wollhansen  (Com/n>t.  p.  102);  Oettli,  Kittcl,  etc.  Ad<li.s  adopts  this  view 
in  his  vol.  ii.  p.  403 — "probably  the  Jahvixt." 

*  Cf.  Dill  MM  mi,  pp.  198  ff.     Wellhauseu  (Comp.  pp.  118  ft". )  assigns  vors. 
1-15  to  a  source  which  takes  a  "  middle  position  between  J  and  Q  (  =  P)," 
and  is  most  nearly  related  to  the  Deutemnomist,     Its  narrative  is  given  as 
parallel  to  JE.     Dillmarm,  Kittel,  and  others  admit  that  J  (not  E)  reckoned 
Joshua  among  the  spies.     Cf.    also   Kohler,  Bib.    Gtsch.  i.  p.  306.     This 
Kumars  xxxii.  is  one  of  the  most  disconcerting  chapters  for  the  divisive 
hyjiothrsis.     "  All  at  tempts  hitherto  at  division  of  sources,"  says  Dillmami, 
"  go  widely  asunder  "  (p.  193). 


358       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

and  order  (ver.  12).     The  critics,  clearly,  have  still  a  good 
deal  to  do  before  they  break  up  the  unity  of  this  story. 

The  Korah  Episode  (chap,  xvi.),  to  which  we  next  turn, 
is  perhaps  a  yet  more  signal  example  of  the  perplexities 
in  which  the  divisive  hypothesis  of  the  critics,  when 
carried  out  to  its  issues,  involves  itself.  We  start  with 
the  assertion — for  which  there  is  some  basis — that  there 
are  traces  in  the  narrative  of  two  movements — one,  headed 
by  Korah,  which  aimed  at  securing  for  the  Levites  the 
rights  of  the  priesthood  (vers.  4-11);  and  the  other,  headed 
by  Dathan  and  Abiram,  a  revolt  of  the  general  congregation 
(laity)  against  the  authority  of  Moses  and  Aaron  (vers. 
13-14).  The  two  movements,  supposing  them  to  have 
existed,  were  no  doubt  blended  in  fact,  as  they  now  are 
in  the  narrative — hence  the  inextricable  difficulties  which 
attend  the  attempt  to  make  two  independent  histories  out 
of  them.1  In  the  first  place,  the  narrative  of  P  itself 
presents  perplexities  from  this  point  of  view;  for  with 
Korah  are  united,  in  vers.  2,  3,  as  many  as  two  hundred  and 
fifty  princes  of  the  congregation,  "  men  of  renown,"  who 
evidently  represent  the  laity  in  their  uprising  against 
Moses  and  Aaron ; 2  i.e.,  are  in  the  same  cause  as  Dathan 
•and  Abiram.3  Wellhausen,  the  Oxford  critics,  and  many 
more,  therefore,  find  it  necessary  to  resolve  this  part  of  the 
P  history  into  two,  and  even  to  deny  that,  in  the  original 
form  of  the  story,  Korah  was  a  Levite  at  all.  Dillmann 
and  others  defend  the  unity  of  P  in  this  place;  while 
Kuenen,  like  Graf  earlier,4  sees  in  the  Levitical  parts 
rather  the  late  work  of  a  redactor.5  But  the  JE  narrative 

1  Kbhler  says  :  "  There  are  no  sufficient  grounds  for  the  contention  that 
in  the  narrative  as  it  lies  before  us,  two  quite  distinct  histories — the  history 
of  an  uprising  of  the  Levite  Korah  against  the  exclusive  priesthood  of  Aaron, 
and  the  history  of  a  revolt  of  the  Reubenites,  Dathan  and  Abiram  against 
the  supremacy  of  Moses  over  Israel — have  been  blended  together." — Bib. 
Gesch.  p.  307. 

a  This,  e.g.,  is  one  of  the  "contradictions"  adduced  by  McFadyen,  in 
his  Messages  of  the  Historians,  p.  7. 

3  Dathan  and  Abiram  throughout  the  story  decline  to  face  Moses  and 
Aaron   (vers.   12  ff.).     Their    absence  at  the  interview,  vers.   3  ff.,   need, 
therefore,  occasion  no  surprise. 

4  Graf  seems  to  admit  that  in  the  original  form  of  the  story  Korah, 
Dathan,  and  Abiram  were  united. — Ocschicht.  Biicher,  p.  89. 

8  From  the  Graf-Wellhausen  standpoint  it  is  of  course  impossible  to 
admit  that  the  Korah  episode  had  any  foundation  in  fact,  or  was  earlier 
than  the  exile.  Hence  the  theory,  referred  to  in  last  chapter,  that  it 
reflects  the  conflicts  of  Ezekiel's  degraded  priests  (Levites)  for  restoration 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     II.  DOCUMENT     359 

is  equally  recalcitrant,  for  it,  in  turn,  makes  it  clear  that  a 
relig-ious  claim  entered  as  well  into  the  popular  movement 
of  Dathan  and  Abiram.  As  the  Oxford  Hezateuch  has  it : 
"  Dathan  and  Abiram  defy  the  authority  of  Moses  on  the 
ground  that  he  has  failed  to  fulfil  his  promise,  and  he 
replies  by  entreating  Yahweh  to  pay  no  attention  to  their 
ottering.  The  basis  of  ver.  15  is  clearly  some  religious 
act,  culminating  in  sacrifice,  and  having  affinity  rather 
with  Korah's  protest  than  with  the  rebellion  of  Dathan 
and  Abiram."1  It  is  necessary,  accordingly,  to  find  two 
narratives  here  also,  as  well  as  in  P,  and  still  further 
complications  are  involved  in  working  the  whole  into  shape. 
The  simplest  solution  is  that  the  error  lies  in  the  original 
assumption  of  independent  narratives,  and  that  probably 
the  events  took  place  as  they  are  actually  described.2 

IV.  ALLEGED  INCONSISTENCIES  AND  HISTORICAL 
INCREDIBILITIES  OF  THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING 

Frequent  references  have  been  made  in  the  course  of 
these  discussions  to  the  inconsistencies,  contradictions, 
duplicate  narratives,  incredibilities,  and  the  like,  which  are 
said  to  prove  that  P  is  a  distinct  writing  from  JE,  late  in 
origin,  and  historically  untrustworthy.  If  our  contention 
is  correct,  it  would  be  truer  to  say  that  it  is  the  assumption 
that  the  documents  in  question  are  independent,  and  each 
complete  in  itself,  which  gives  rise  to  most  of  the  appear- 
ances of  inconsistency  and  contradiction. 

1.  It  was  before  indicated  that  only  thus  can  it  be  made 

to  their  full  priestly  dignity.  As  there  pointed  out,  those  post-Eaekiel 
conflict*  of  a  party  of  degraded  priests  have  no  foundation  in  history  ;  are, 
in  fact,  a  pure  creation  of  the  imagination. 

1  Hex.  ii.  p.  212. 

1  As  a  further  illustration  of  the  difficulties  involved  in  the  divisive 
hypothesis,  we  might  have  referred  to  the  critical  treatment  of  the  story 
of  the  bringing  of  the  water  from  the  rock  at  Meribah  (Num.  xx.  1  n".). 
Of  this  story,  Addis  says  :  "  Here  we  have  one  of  tho  tew  (?)  instances 
in  which  the  documents  of  the  'Oldest  Ilook  of  Hebrew  History'  have  been 
inextricably  entangled,  not,  as  is  often  the  case,  with  each  other,  but  with 
the  narrative  of  the  '  Priestly  Writer.'" — Hex.  i.  p.  169.  It  is  pointed  out 
that  here  the  writer  departs  from  his  usual  practice  of  idealising  his  heroes, 
in  admitting  that  MOMS  and  Aaron  were  guilty  of  great  sin.  The  reason 
given  is  an  excellent  example  of  the  method.  "  He  docs  so,"  we  are  told, 
"  because  the  fact  that  Moses  and  Aaron  did  not  enter  the  promised  land 
was  too  fixed  and  conspicuous  in  tradition  to  be  gainsaid,  ana  it  had  to  be 
accounted  for." — Hex.  ii.  p.  419. 


360       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES : 

out,  e.g.,  that  P  "  knows  nothing "  of  a  fall,  or  of  sacrifices 
of  the  patriarchs,1  or  of  incidents  derogatory  to  the 
patriarchs  —  his  narrative  being,  as  Kuenen  says,  one 
"  from  which  every  trace  of  hostility  between  Abraham  and 
Lot,  Isaac  and  Ishmael,  Jacob  and  Esau,  Joseph  and  his 
brothers,  has  been  carefully  removed." 2  Is  it  credible,  on 
the  principles  of  the  critical  hypothesis  itself,  that  P,  with 
the  JE  history  in  his  hands,  and  founding  upon  it,  should 
have  supposed  his  readers  unacquainted  with  the  fact  that 
the  patriarchs  built  altars  and  offered  sacrifices,  or  should 
have  intended  to  "  make  sacrifices  to  the  deity  begin  with  the 
Mosaic  age  "  ? 8  One  might  as  well  argue  that  J,  on  his  part, 
"  knows  nothing "  of  the  deaths  of  the  patriarchs !  Again, 
if  P  gives  only  a  "thread" — "the  mere  links  and  articu- 
lations " — of  a  narrative,  and  records  practically  nothing  of 
the  lives  of  Isaac  and  Joseph,  where  is  the  room  for  the 
assertion  that  he  "  carefully  removes "  this,  or  "  avoids " 
that  ?  Especially  when  the  knowledge  of  the  full  patriarchal 
history  is  throughout  presupposed.*  If  P,  e.g.,  gives  us  no 
life  of  Joseph  at  all,  how  can  it  be  alleged  that  he  has 
removed  "  every  trace  of  hostility  between  Joseph  and  his 
brothers "  ? 5  Can  inferences  be  drawn  from  that  which 
does  not  exist  ?  On  the  other  hand,  as  we  have  sought 
to  show  in  the  narratives  of  the  flood,  of  the  plagues  in 
Egypt,  of  the  spies,  of  the  rebellion  of  Korah,  when  the 
narratives  are  taken  in  their  completeness,  nine-tenths  of 
the  allegations  of  inconsistency  and  contradiction  fall  of 
their  own  accord. 

1  See  above,  p.  166  ;  cf.  Kautzsch,  Lit.  of  O.T.,p.  110  ;  Driver,  Genesis, 
p.  x*ii,  etc. 

2  Hex.  p.  301.     Carpenter  says:  "The  extent  to  which  the  figures  of 
the  primeval  history  were  already  surrounded,  in  view  of  the  Priests'  Writ- 
ing, with  a  kind  of  saintly  aureole,  is  seen  from  the  obviously  intentional 
omission  of  all  the  traits  which  seem  to  lower  the  dignity  of  the  patriarchs." 
— Hex.  i.  p.  301.     Probably,  on  the  same  principle,  P  intends  throwing  an 
"aureole     round  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  since,  as  Carpenter  says  :  "Even 
when  Lot  settles   in   the  cities  of  the   'circle,'  the   writer  refrains   from 
commenting  on  their  characters"  (p.  123). 

*  Euenen,  Hex.  p.  301.  Cf.  Colenso  in  reply  to  Kuenen,  quoted  above, 
p.  156. 

4  Carpenter  says :  "  Again  and  again  does  the  brevity  of  the  narrative 
imply  that  the  author  relies  on  the  previous  acquaintance  of  his  readers 
with  the  facts."— Fez.  i.  p.  123 :  cf.  above,  pp.  344  ff. 

8  Kuenen,  as  above.  It  was  shown  earlier  that  it  is  P  alone  who  records 
the  sin  of  Moses  and  Aaron  that  excluded  them  from  Canaan  (cf.  above,  p. 
276). 


Till!  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     II.  DOCUMENT     361 

2.  It  is  not  greatly  different  with  alleged  duplicate 
narratives,  some  of  which,  as  the  stories  of  the  creation  and 
the  flood,  and  the  denial  of  their  wives  by  the  patriarchs,  have 
already  been  dealt  with.  It  was  found  earlier  that  several 
of  the  alleged  duplicates  fall  within  the  limits  of  the  same 
document,  as  the  denials  of  their  wives  by  Abraham  and  Isaac 
in  J  (Gen.  xii  ;  xxvl  6  ff.),  and  two  Korah  stories,  according 
to  Wellhausen  and  others,  in  P  (Num.  xvi.  2  fl'.),  and  may 
therefore  reasonably  be  supposed  to  have  belonged  to  the 
original  tradition.  By  far  the  greater  number  of  instances 
we  should  deny  to  be  "  duplicates "  in  the  proper  sense  at 
all — i.e.,  divergent  traditions  of  the  same  incidents.  The 
redactor  (not  to  say  the  original  authors)  can  hardly  have 
regarded  them  as  such,  or  he  would  have  omitted  one,  or 
sought  to  combine  them  in  his  usual  harmonistic  way. 
We  said  before,  in  speaking  of  JE,  that  there  was  no  good 
reason,  as  it  appeared  to  us,  for  identifying  the  flight  of 
Hagar,  in  Gen.  xvi.  (J),  with  her  expulsion  by  Sarah  in 
chap.  XXL  (E),  or  even  Abraham's  denials  of  his  wife  at 
Egypt  (chap,  xil  J)  and  at  Gerar  (Gen.  xx.  E).1  So  there  is 
no  good  reason  in  the  nature  of  the  case  for  identifying 
the  two  revelations  at  Bethel — one  before  Jacob's  going  to 
Paddan-Aram  (Gen.  xxviii.  10  ff.  JE),  the  other  on  his 
return  (chap.  xxxv.  9  ff.  P)  ;  or  the  two  revelations  to  Moses 
— one  at  the  burning  bush  in  Midian  (Ex.  iii.  1  ff.  JE),  the 
other  in  Egypt  (chap.  vi.  2  tf.  P),  etc.  On  the  contrary,  in 
most  of  these  narratives  there  are  plain  indications  that  the 
incidents  are  distinct,  and  that  the  later  implies  the  earlier. 
In  Gen.  xxi.,  e.g.,  Ishmael  is  already  born,  and  old  enough 
to  "mock"  Isaac;  but  only  in  Gen.  xvi.  15,  16  (P)  is  his 
birth  narrated.  The  second  vision  in  Bethel  is  connected 
with  the  first  by  the  word  "  again  "  *  (Gen.  xxxv.  9),  and  is 
led  up  to  by  the  revelations  in  chaps,  xxxi.  13,  xxxv  1  (E), 
summoning  Jacob  back  from  Paddan-Aram,  and  recalling 
him  to  Bethel — histories  admittedly  known  to  P.  Ex.  vL 
'2  ff.  introduces  Moses  and  Aaron  abruptly,  and  the  earlier 
•IE  history  is  implied,  explaining  who  Moses  was,  and  how 
he  came  to  be  connected  with  the  children  of  Israel  and 

1  Se«  above,  pp.  236  ff. 

1  "  The  editor,"  say  the  Oxford  critics,  "  has  inserted  the  word  '  again.'  " 
--//«.  ii.  p.  55.  Hut  why  I  Siure  P  admittedly  knew  the  earlier  stories, 
what  motive  could  he  have  lor  ignoring  them,  and  inventing  a  new  one  in 
a  different  connection  f 


362       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

with  Pharaoh  in  Egypt1 — a  history  again  presumed,  on 
the  newer  theory,  to  be  known  to  P.2  Indeed,  on  the 
"omission"  or  "mutual  mutilation"  hypothesis  of  the 
critics,  what  right  have  we  to  suppose  that  in  all  these 
cases  both  stories  were  not  found  in  the  documents  con- 
cerned, and  that,  as  in  so  many  other  instances  of  parallel 
narratives,  the  suppression  of  one  is  not  due  to  the  redactor  ? 
3.  The  "  historical  incredibilities  "  freely  imputed  to  the 
Priestly  Writing,  as  to  other  parts  of  the  narrative  of  the 
Pentateuch,  can  only  here  be  briefly  touched  on,  though 
they  form  the  real  ground  of  much  of  the  criticism  directed 
against  that  work.3  There  is,  in  truth,  in  this  department, 
extremely  little — hardly  anything — with  which  those  who 
have  had  to  do  with  the  subject  have  not  been  familiar  since 
the  days  of  the  Deistical  controversy,  or  which  was  not 
pressed  home  with  skill  and  cogency  by  the  earlier  sceptical 
writers  of  last  century,  as  Von  Bohlen,  etc.  Only  in  those 
days  it  was  not  called  "  believing  criticism  "  of  the  Bible,  but 
destructive  attack  upon  it !  In  modern  times  the  writer 
chiefly  relied  on  as  having  irretrievably  shattered  the 
historical  credibility  of  the  narratives  in  the  Pentateuch — 
especially  those  proceeding  from  the  Priestly  Writer — is 
Bishop  Colenso.  The  arguments  of  this  authority  are  taken 
over  practically  en  bloc  by  modern  critical  scholars,  and 
treated  as  irrefragable  demonstrations  that  the  stories  in 
Genesis,  but  particularly  those  of  the  Mosaic  period,  are 
throughout  utterly  unhistorical.4  On  this  subject,  while  we 

1  Of.  Kohler,  Sib.  Gesch.  i.  pp.  182-83. 

1  It  is  in  the  light  of  such  considerations  that  we  see  how  revolutionary 
for  the  critical  theory  is  the  admission  that  P  knew,  and  supposed  his 
readers  to  know,  these  earlier  histories.  To  take  one  other  example  from 
Genesis.  "The  promise  of  a  son  to  Sarah,"  says  Dr.  Driver,  "is  twice 
described." — Genesis,  p.  iii.  But  how  is  the  matter  mended  if  the  author 
of  chap.  xvii.  knew  of  chap,  xviii.  ?  The  promises  are  really  distinct — one  to 
Abraham,  the  other  in  hearing  of  Sarah. 

*  Thus  Kuenen  :  ' '  The  representations  in  the  later  books  of  the  Pentateuch 
simply  defy  the  conditions  of  space  and  time  to  which  every  event  is  subject, 
and  by  which,  therefore,  every  narrative  may  be  tested.  The  Exodus,  the 
wandering,  the  passage  of  the  Jordan,  and  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  as  they 
are  described  in  the  ffexateuch,  simply  could  not  have  happened." — Hex. 
p.  43. 

4  "With  one  single  exception,  "says  Kuenen,  "the  twenty  chapters  of  his 
book  (Pt.  i.)  are  devoted  to  an  absolutely  pulverising  criticism  of  the  data  of 
the  Griindschrift."  He  speaks  of  the  difficulties  as  "massed  together  and 
set  forth  by  him  with  imperturbable  sang  froid and  relentless  thoroughness." 
— Hex.  Introd.  pp.  xiv-xvii,  p.  45.  Wellhausen  says  :  "  Colenso  is  properly 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     II.  DOCUMENT    363 

l»ave  no  interest  in  arguing  for  a  supernatural  accuracy  in 
chronological  or  historical  matters  in  the  Biblical  narratives 
beyond  what  the  soundness  of  his  information  enabled  the 
sacred  writer  to  attain,  yet,  as  having  lived  through  the 
Colenso  storm,  and  read  pretty  fully  into  the  literature 
it  called  forth,  we  desire  to  dissociate  ourselves  entirely 
from  these  extravagant  estimates  of  the  success  of  the 
Bishop's  destructive  work.  Colenso's  courage,  honesty,  and 
loyalty  to  truth,  as  he  understood  it,  we  shall  not  seek 
to  dispute.  But  his  work  lacked  from  the  commencement 
the  first  condition  of  success, — insight  into  the  meaning, 
and  sympathy  with  the  spirit,  of  the  books  he  was  working 
with.  The  distinction  between  a  supernatural  and  a  purely 
natural  history  was  one  to  which  he  allowed  no  weight — did 
not  seem  able  even  to  appreciate;  many  real  difficulties 
he  emphasised,  which  others,  perhaps,  had  passed  over  too 
lightly,  but  many  more  were  the  creation  of  a  mind  working 
in  narrow  arithmetical  grooves,  and  bent  on  applying  to  a 
historical  writing  the  canons  of  a  rigorous  literalism,  which 
would  be  more  justly  described  as  "  intolerable  pedantry  " 
than  the  work  of  the  Priestly  Writer  to  which  it  was 
applied.  His  book  was  keenly  scrutinised,  and  manifoldly 
replied  to,  at  the  time ;  and  those  are  widely  mistaken  who, 
on  the  strength  of  the  laudations  of  the  critics,  persuade 
themselves  that  the  victory  was  altogether  his.  We  shall 
best  show  this  by  a  rapid  glance  at  his  criticism. 

(1)  It  would  be  unpardonable  to  resuscitate — were  it  not 
that  they  must  be  presumed  to  belong  to  those  demonstra- 
tions of  contradiction  of  the  "  universal  laws  of  time  and 
space"  which  Kuenen  speaks  of — the  extraordinary  com- 
putations by  which  Bishop  Colenso  proves  to  his  satisfaction 
that  "  all  the  congregation  "  of  Israel  could  not  assemble 
at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle,  or  that  the  Levitical  laws  could 
not  be  observed  in  their  entirety  in  the  wilderness.  Who 
that  has  read  his  book  will  ever  forget  his  wonderful  calcula- 
tions to  show  that,  even  excepting  ex  gratia  such  as  may 
have  been  detained  by  sickness  or  other  necessary  causes, 
"  the  whole  congregation "  of  nearly  2,000,000,  could  not 

entitled  to  the  creilit  of  having  first  torn  the  web  asunder." — ///«/.  i>f  Israel, 
p.  347.  Addis  says:  "One  baa  only  to  n-.i.l  the  first  two  volumes  of 
CoK-uso  to  see  what  absurdities  are  involved  if  wo  take  the  Pentateuch  as  it 
stands,  and  treat  it  as  one  book.  There  is  no  end  to  the  chronological 
monstrosities  which  meet  us  at  every  turn." — Hex.  i.  p.  1. 


364       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

have  been  squeezed  into  the  court  of  the  tabernacle,  and, 
standing  as  closely  as  possible,  in  rows  of  nine,  not  merely 
at  the  door,  but  (another  concession)  at  the  end  of  the 
tabernacle,  would  have  reached — the  men  alone  for  nearly 
20  miles,  all  the  people  for  nearly  60  miles !  Or  his 
reasoning  that  the  Levitical  law  required  the  officiating 
priest  "  to  carry  on  his  back  on  foot "  the  carcase  of  the 
bullock  of  the  sin-offering  to  "  a  clean  place "  without  the 
camp — on  one  reckoning  a  distance  of  about  f  of  a  mile,  on 
another  reckoning  about  6  miles!  Or  his  proof  that  the 
three  priests  in  the  wilderness  could  not  have  offered — not 
to  say  eaten — the  90,000  pigeons  annually,  or  88  per  diem 
apiece,  required  by  the  law  for  the  250  cases  of  child-birth 
daily ! l  Some  least  grain  of  common  sense  might  be  con- 
ceded to  the  Priestly  Writer,  who,  whatever  his  faults, 
certainly  did  not  mean  to  palm  off  upon  his  readers  such 
crude  absurdities  as  these.  Most  people  will  feel  that  the 
force  of  his  language  is  abundantly  satisfied  by  large  and 
representative  gatherings  of  the  people  at  and  around  the 
tabernacle  on  solemn  occasions  ; 2  and  will  remember  that, 
"according  to  the  story,"  to  use  the  Bishop's  phrase,  the 
priests  had  a  whole  tribe  of  Levites  to  assist  them  in  their 
menial  duties — though  these,  as  formerly  noticed,3  strangely 
enough,  from  the  critical  point  of  view,  never  appear  in  the 
laws  in  Leviticus.  If  the  pigeons  were  not,  as  the  Bishop 
says  they  would  riot  be,  obtainable  in  any  large  numbers  in 
the  wilderness,  they  would  not  be  there  to  bring  or  eat; 
but  the  objection  overlooks  that  the  sacrificial  system  had 
specially  in  view  the  future  settled  habitation  of  the  people 
(cf.  Num.  xv.  2  ff.),  and  that  in  point  of  fact,  it  is  represented 
as  having  been  largely  suspended  during  the  years  of 
wandering.4 

(2)  No  thoughtful  reader  will  minimise  the  very  real 
difficulties  inhering  in  the  Biblical  narratives  of  the  Exodus 
— the  remarkable  increase  of  the  children  of  Israel  in 

1  Pent.  Pt.  i.    See  references  and  quotations  in  Note  A  on  Bishop  Colenso's 
Numerical  Objections. 

2  Publicly-called  meetings  of  "the  inhabitants"  of  large  towns  or  cities 
are   frequently   held   in    hulls  of  very   moderate  dimensions.     Ecclesiasti- 
cally, the  writer  lias  been  present  at  duly-summoned  and  formally-minuted 
meetings  of  a  Church  Presbytery  of  several  hundred  members,  for  purposes 
of  ordination,  where  the  members  present  were  accommodated  on  a  railed 
platform  of  a  few  feet  square.     Golenso  could  prove  it  impossible. 

*  See  above,  p.  304.  *  Josh.  v.  5  ;  cf.  Amos  v.  25. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WHITING.     II.  DOCUMENT     365 

.  't,1  the  circumstances  of  the  Exodus  itself,  the  passage 
of  the  Red  Sea,  the  care  of  the  people  in  the  wilderness  and 
provision  for  them,  etc.  These  facts,  at  the  same  time,  are 
precisely  among  the  best  attested  in  the  history  of  Israel ; 
and,  in  dealing  with  them,  justice  requires  that  we  treat 
them  from  the  Bible's  own  point  of  view,  as  events  altogether 
exceptional  in  the  history  of  that  people,  and,  indeed,  of 
mankind,  accomplished  by  divine  help,  and,  as  respects  the 
Exodus,  under  the  highest  exaltation  of  religious  and 
patriotic  consciousness  of  which  a  nation  is  capable.  Many 
i-lements,  also,  which  do  not  appear  upon  the  surface  of  the 
narrative,  have  to  be  taken  into  account,  e.g.t  that  the 
patriarchs  who  went  down  to  Egypt  did  so  accompanied  by 
extensive  households.2  Colenso,  in  the  work  referred  to, 
however,  will  admit  none  of  these  relieving  considerations 
(nor  even  the  "households"),  insists  on  bringing  every- 
thing to  the  foot-rule  of  the  most  ordinary  experience 
— the  birth-rate  of  London,  e.g.,  or  a  lower  rate,8 — eliminates 
wholly  the  supernatural  element,  founds  upon  the  Biblical 
data  where  these  suit  his  purpose,  but  rejects  other  state- 
ments which  throw  light  upon  the  former ;  very  often  by 
his  grotesque  literalism  creates  difficulties  which  are  not  in 
the  Biblical  narrative  at  all.  Thus,  e.g.,  he  will  have  it  that 
"  in  one  single  day,  the  order  to  start  was  communicated 
suddenly,  at  midnight,  to  every  single  family  of  every  town 
and  village,  throughout  a  tract  of  country  as  large  as 
Hertfordshire,  but  ten  times  as  thickly  peopled";  that 
"  they  then  came  in  from  all  parts  of  the  land  of  Goshen  to 
Rameses,  bringing  with  them  the  sick  and  infirm,  the  young 
and  the  aged;  further,  that  since  receiving  the  summons, 
they  had  sent  out  to  gather  in  all  their  flocks  and  herds, 
spread  over  so  wide  a  district,  and  had  driven  them  also  to 
Rameses ;  and  lastly,  that  having  done  all  this,  since  they 

1  It  is  undesirable,  on  the  other  band,  to  exaggerate  the  difficulty.  The 
writer  has  personal  knowledge  of  a  family  the  heads  of  which  celebrated 
their  golden  wedding  in  1830.  In  that  50  yrars  the  original  couple  had 
multiplied  to  60  (there  were  two  deaths).  If  the  reader  will  reckon  the 
i. -Milt  of  a  similar  rate  of  iiu-reasc  Tor  300  or  400  years,  the  figures  may 
Kurprise  him. 

-  This  is  no  doubt  the  uniform  representation  in  Genesis,  cf.,  e.g.,  Gen. 
xiv.  14;  zxri.  13,  14;  xxxii.  4,  5,  10,  etc.  Colenso  clings  to  the  literal 
sevt-nty  souls. 

'  He  prefers  to  take  his  rate  from  the  alow  growth  in  the  lifetimes  of 
Abraham  and  Isaac. 


366      DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

were  roused  at  midnight,  they  were  started  again  from 
Barneses  that  very  same  day  and  marched  on  to  Succoth, 
not  leaving  a  single  sick  or  infirm  person,  a  single  woman 
in  child-birth,  or  even  '  a  single  hoof '  behind  them."  "  This 
is  undoubtedly,"  he  avers,  "  what  the  story  in  the  Book  of 
Exodus  requires  us  to  believe  (Ex.  xii.  31-41,  51)." l 
"  Incredibility,"  truly !  But  the  picture  is  a  creation  of  the 
objector's  own  imagination,  of  a  piece  with  his  persistence 
(in  which  many  modern  critics  support  him)  that  the 
passover  is  represented  as  taking  place  on  the  night  of  the 
same  day  in  which  the  first  command  to  observe  it  was  given. 
Both  objections  fall  together  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
text  on  which  the  above  assertion  is  based:  "I  will  pass 
through  the  land  of  Egypt  this  night "  (Ex.  xii.  12),2  occurs  in 
a  law  which  expressly  ordains  that  the  lamb  of  the  passover 
is  to  be  chosen  on  the  10th  day  of  the  month,  and  kept 
till  the  14th  (vers.  3,  6) ;  which,  therefore,  must  have  been 
given  still  earlier  in  the  month,  perhaps  near  its  beginning. 

(3)  We  do  not  propose  to  re-thresh  the  hundred  times 
threshed  straw  of  Colenso's  long  catalogue  of  "incredibilities" 
— most  of  them  retailed  by  others — but  confine  ourselves  to 
two  examples,  which  perhaps  will  be  admitted  to  be  fairly 
typical. 

The  first  is  the  very  old  difficulty  about  Hezron  and 
Hamul,  the  sons  of  Pharez,  whose  names  are  included  in 
the  list  of  threescore  and  ten  who  went  down  with  Jacob  to 
Egypt  (Gen.  xlvL).  A  simple  reckoning  shows  that  Pharez, 
the  father  of  this  pair,  cannot  himself  have  been  more  than 
three  or  four  years  old  at  the  time  of  the  descent;3  his 
sons,  therefore,  must  have  been  born,  not  in  Canaan,  but  in 
Egypt.  Dr.  Driver,  like  Bishop  Colenso,  finds  here  "  a  grave 
chronological  discrepancy  between  P  and  JE."*  Yet  the 

1  Pent.  Pt.  i.  pp.  61-62.     The  passage  is  partly  from  E,  partly  from  P. 

9  In  ver.  12  as  in  ver.  8,  etc.,  the  words  "  this  night "  refer  to  the  night 
spoken  of,  not  to  the  night  in  which  the  words  are  spoken.  The  Oxford 
Hexateuch  translates  "that  night"  (ii.  p.  96). 

3  Judah  was  about  forty-three  years  old  at  the  descent,  and  as  his  sons 
Er  and  Onan  had  been  married  and  were  dead  a  year  or  two  before  the  birth 
of  Pharez  (Gen.  xxxviii.),  the  latter  cannot  have  been  more  than  the  age 
staled  at  the  descent. 

*  Genesis,  p.  365.  On  the  contrary,  the  reference  to  Er  and  Onan  iu. 
ver.  12  is  a  clear  allusion  to  the  JE  story  in  chap,  xxxviii.,  as  also  is  the 
place  given  to  Hezron  and  Hamul  in  the  list.  Why  should  P,  who  knew 
the  JE  story,  wantonly  contradict  it  T 


THE  PRIESTLY   NY  KITING.     II.  DOCUMENT    367 

ordinary  solution,  viz.,  that  Hezron  and  Hamul  are 
here  introduced  (Colenso  failed  to  observe,  in  a  separate 
clause)  as  the  legal  representatives  and  substitutes  of  Er 
and  Onan,  who  are  said  to  have  died  in  the  land  of  Canaan,1 
seems  not  only  perfectly  admissible,  but  even  required  by 
the  peculiar  construction  of  the  passage.  The  story  in  Gen. 
xxxviiL,  forbidding  as  it  is,  adequately  explains  the  ground 
of  this  substitution.  On  genealogies  generally  it  is  to  be 
remarked  that  they  are  commonly  constructed  on  more  or 
less  technical  principles,  and  have  to  be  construed  in  that 
light.  This  table  of  seventy  persons,  e.g.,  is  evidently  one 
of  heads  of  families,  and  includes  in  its  enumeration,  not 
only  Jacob  himself  and  his  daughter  Dinah,  but  Er  and 
Onun,  who  died  in  Canaan  (represented  by  Hezron  and 
Hamul),  and  Joseph's  two  sons,  who,  though  expressly 
mentioned  as  boru  in  the  land  of  Egypt  (ver.  20),  are 
embraced  in  "  the  souls  that  came  with  Jacob  into 


Our  second  example  is  one  usually  regarded  as  among 
the  most  formidable—  the  number  of  the  (male)  firstborn  in 
Israel  as  compared  with  the  total  number  of  males.  The 
firstborn  males  are  given  in  Num.  iii.  43  as  22,273  (a 
number  whose  accuracy  is  checked  by  comparison  with 
that  of  the  Levites).  Assuming  now  the  total  number  of 
males  to  be  900,000,  we  have  a  proportion  of  one  firstborn 
to  42  males,  which  is  interpreted  to  mean  that  "  according 
to  the  story  of  the  Pentateuch  every  mother  in  Israel  must 
have  had  on  the  average  42  sons  !  "  8  It  may  again  occur 
that  the  Priestly  Writer,  who  had  at  least  a  genius  for 
manipulating  and  systematizing  figures,  could  hardly  have 

1  Reckoning  Jacob,  either  Er  and  Onan,  or  Hezron  and  Hanml,  must  be 
omitted  to  make  the  number  S3  in  vcr.  15. 

*  Cf.  Delitzach,  Genetis,  i.  pp.  337-40  ;  Hengstenbcrg,  Pent.  ii.  pp. 
290  ff.  Kuenen  regards  this  list  as  a  (atrhwork  put  together  from  Num. 
xxri.  (Hex.  p.  68)  ;  Bennett  thinks  it  "may  be  an  abstract  of  the  chapters 
in  Chronicles"  (t),  and  says  "the  66  (in  ver.  20)  is  a  correction  of  an 
editor"  (Om.  pp.  378,  882).  Dr.  Driver  also  brackets  "Jacob  and  his 
MM"  (ver.  8),  and  the  "threescore-and-six  "  of  ver.  26,  and  all  ver.  27, 
but  "  threescore  and  ten  "  as  additions  to  the  original  text  (Otnesit,  p.  368). 
There  is  no  authority  for  any  of  these  assertions  or  changes,  which  create 
difficulties,  and  remove  none.  Even  in  Dr.  Driver'*  revised  text,  Er  and 
Onan,  who  never  were  in  Egypt,  and  Joseph's  two  sons,  wli<>  never  were  in 
Canaan,  are  needed  to  make  up  the  70  "  that  came  down  with  Jacob  to 

jpt  "  (vew.  26-27). 

'  Pent.,  People's  edit.  p.  49. 


368       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

been  unaware  of  a  discrepancy  which  has  been  so  obvious 
to  his  critics  from  the  beginning ;  and  that  the  more  likely 
explanation  is,  that  he  and  his  critics  are  proceeding  on 
different  principles  in  their  reckonings.  Nor  is  it  hard, 
perhaps,  to  see  where  at  least  the  main  part  of  the  solution 
lies ;  the  solution  is,  in  fact,  as  old  as  the  difficulty  itself. 
In  the  first  place,  it  must  be  observed  that  the  firstborn  in 
a  family  would  be  as  often  a  daughter  as  a  son ;  this  at  once 
reduces  the  number  of  sons  to  each  mother  by  one  half.1 
In  the  next  place,  it  is  on  every  ground  unlikely  that 
persons  who  were  themselves  married  and  heads  of  families 
would  be  reckoned  as  "  firstborns."  It  is  more  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  the  reckoning  was  confined,  as  it  has  been 
expressed,  "  to  the  rising  generation — those  who  were  still 
children  in  the  houses  of  their  parents  " — and  that  it  did 
not  include  all  who  had  ever  been  firstborns  in  their  own 
generation ;  fathers,  grandfathers,  and  great-grandfathers,  if 
still  alive.  That  this  was  the  real  nature  of  the  reckoning 
seems  established,  among  other  considerations,  by  the  analogy 
of  the  firstborns  in  Egypt,  where  certainly  fathers,  grand- 
fathers, and  more  remote  ancestors  are  not  regarded  as 
included  in  the  judgment.2  This  again  practically  limits 
the  firstborns  to  those  under  twenty.3  These  may  have 
formed  about  a  third  of  the  total  number,  or,  if  regard  be 
had  to  the  longer  ages  of  these  times,  may  have  been  nearer 
a  fourth.4  Instead  of  42  sons  to  each  mother,  there- 
fore, we  are  now  brought  down  to  nearly  5 ;  and  account 
has  still  to  be  taken  of  cases  in  which  the  firstborn  of  a 
family  was  dead,  of  polygamous  marriages,  or  concubinage, 
where  possibly  only  the  firstborn  of  the  house  was  reckoned,5 
and  of  a  probable  diminished  rate  of  marriage  in  the  last 
years  of  the  oppression,  and  in  prospect  of  deliverance. 

1  Colenso  ingenuously  observes  that  this  does  not  rid  us  of  the  difficulty, 
but  only  "changes  the  form  of  it,  for  each  mother  has  still  42  children" 
(ibid.  p.  50).     But,  with  all  respect,  the  daughters  are  there  in  any  case, 
and  have  to  be  accounted  for. 

2  Pharaoh,  e.g.,  was  himself  probably  a  firstborn,  but  was  not  slain. 
On  Colenso's  view,  in  most  houses  there  would  be  more  than  "one  dead" 
(Ex.  xii.  30). 

8  Colenso  says  that  the  text  does  not  prescribe  any  such  limit.  But  the 
text  does  not  state  at  all  on  what  principle  the  reckoning  was  made. 

4  Cf.  Kohler's  discussion,  Bib.  Gesch.  pp.  288-89. 

8  In  a  family  like  Jacob's,  e.g.,  how  many  "firstborns"  would  be 
reckoned  ;  Reuben,  whom  Jacob  calls  "my  firstborn"  (Gen.  xlix.  3),  or  all 
the  firstborns  of  the  several  wives  ?  Cf.  the  law,  Deut.  xxi.  15,  17. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WHITING.     II.  DOfTMKNT    369 

Thrso  are  not  "harmonistic  expedients,"  but  explanations 
that  lie  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  are  obviously 
suggested  by  the  reckoning  itself. 

The  conclusion  of  our  inquiry,  therefore,  brings  us  back 
to  the  point  we  started  from — strong  confidence  in  the  unity 
of  the  narrative,  and  in  its  essential  historical  credibility. 

V.  GENERAL  RESULTS:  MOSAICITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

To  what  result — we  must  now  ask — does  our  whole 
investigation  conduct  us  on  the  origin  of  the  Priestly 
Writing,  and  the  age  and  composition  of  the  Pentateuch 
generally.  We  began  by  leaving  it  an  open  question 
whether,  or  how  many,  separate  documents  were  employed 
in  the  compilation  of  that  work,  and  if  so,  what  were  the 
ages  and  mutual  relations  of  these  documents.  To  what 
conclusions  have  we  now  been  led  ? 

For  one  thing,  it  is  first  to  be  said,  not  to  the  conclusion 
that  Moses  himself  wrote  the  Pentateuch  in  the  precise 
shape  or  extent  in  which  we  now  possess  it ;  for  the  work, 
we  think,  shows  very  evident  signs  of  different  pens  and 
styles,  of  editorial  redaction,  of  stages  of  compilation.  As 
before  observed,  its  composition  has  a  history,  whether  we 
are  able  ever  to  track  satisfactorily  that  history  or  not. 
On  the  other  hand,  next,  very  strongly  to  the  view  of  the 
unity,  essential  Mosaicity,  and  relative  antiquity  of  the 
Pentateuch.  The  unity  which  characterises  the  work  has 
its  basis  mainly  in  the  history,  knit  together  as  that  is  by 
the  presence  of  a  developing  divine  purpose ;  but  arises  also 
from  the  plan  of  the  book,  which  must  have  been  laid  down 
early,  by  one  mind,  or  different  minds  working  together, 
while  the  memory  of  the  great  patriarchal  traditions  was  yet 
fresh,  and  the  impressions  of  the  stupendous  deliverance 
from  Egypt,  and  of  the  wonderful  events  connected  with, 
and  following  it,  were  yet  recent  and  vivid.  In  the  collation 
and  preparation  of  the  materials  for  this  work — some  of 
them,  perhaps,  reaching  back  into  pre-Mosaic  times — and 
the  laying  of  the  foundations  of  the  existing  narratives,  to 
which  Moses  by  his  own  compositions,  according  to  constant 
tradition,  lent  the  initial  impulse,  many  hands  and  minds 
may  have  co-operated,  and  may  have  continued  to  co- 
operate, after  the  master-mind  was  removed ;  but  unity  of 

24 


370       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES. 

purpose  and  will  gave  a  corresponding  unity  to  the  product 
of  their  labours.  So  far  from  such  a  view  being  obsolete,  or 
disproved  by  modern  criticism,  we  hold  that  internal  in- 
dications, external  evidence,  and  the  circumstances  of  the 
Mosaic  age  itself,  unite  in  lending  their  support  to  its 
probability. 

1.  It  is  in  favour  of  the  view  we  defend  that  it  is  in  line 
with  the  Bible's  own  constant  tradition  of  the  Mosaicity  of 
the  Pentateuchal  books,  which  the  modern  hypothesis 
contradicts  at  every  point.  The  Biblical  evidence  on  this 
subject  of  Mosaic  origin  is  often  unduly  minimised,  but  it  is 
really  very  strong  and  pervasive.  Apart  from  the  assump- 
tion of  the  existence  of  a  "book  of  the  law  of  Moses"  in 
passages  of  the  historical  books,1  and  the  implication  of  its 
existence  in  passages  where  it  is  not  expressly  mentioned  : 2 
apart  also  from  the  firm  belief  of  the  Jews  in  the  days  of 
our  Lord  and  His  apostles — a  belief  which  our  Lord 
Himself  shared 3 — there  can  be  no  question  : — 

(1)  That  all  the  three  Codes — the  Book  of  the  Covenant, 
the   Deuteronomic   discourses,  and   the   Levitical    Code — 
profess   to   come  from    Moses,  and   the   first  and   second 
profess  to  have  been  written  by  him.4 

(2)  That  the  Deuteronomic  discourses  imply  the  existence, 
in  substance  and  in  part  in  written  form,  of  the  JE  history ; 
and  that  the  P  writing,  likewise,  presupposes  the  JE  history, 
with  which,  in  its  narrative  part,  it  is  parallel.6 

(3)  That  king  Josiah  and  the  Jewish  people  of  his  day 
received  Deuteronomy  as  a  genuine  work  of  Moses,  and  that 
the  nation  ever  after  regarded  it  as  his.6 

(4)  That  the   Jewish  people   of   Ezra's   time   similarly 
accepted   the  whole    Pentateuch  —  including  the    Levitical 
legislation — as  genuinely  Mosaic.7 

(5)  That  the  Samaritans  received  the  Pentateuch  at  the 
hands  of  the  Jews  as  an  undoubtedly  Mosaic  book.8 

To  these  firm  strands  of  tradition  we  may  with 
much  confidence  attach  ourselves,  without  feeling  that 

1  Josh.  i.  7,  8  ;  viii.  30-35  ;  xxiv.  26 ;  2  Kings  xiv.  6  ;  cf.  2  Chron. 
xxv.  4,  etc. 

a  E.g.,  1  Kings  viii.  4  ff. 

3  See  Note  B  on  our  Lord's  Testimony  to  Moses. 

4  Cf.  above,  pp.  99,  152,  262.  8  Cf.  above,  pp.  107,  etc. 

6  Cf.  above,  pp.  257  ff.         7  Ezra  vi.  18  ;  Neh.  xiii.  1  ;  cf.  Mai.  iv.  4. 
8  See  Note  C  on  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WHITING.     II.  DOCUMENT    371 

"  traditionalist,"  in  such  a  connection,  is  any  term  of 
reproach.  As  has  happened  in  the  case  of  the  New 
Testament,1  so,  it  may  be  predicted,  it  will  prove  also  in  the 
case  of  the  Old,  that  greater  respect  will  yet  come  to  be 
paid  to  consentient  tradition  than  it  is  now  the  fashion  to 
accord  to  it 

2.  It  is  not,  however,  tradition  merely  which  supports 
the  idea  of  an  essential  Mosaicity  of  the  Pentateuch.  A 
strict  application  of  critical  metJwds  leads  to  the  same 
conclusion.  We  may  sum  up  here  the  chief  results  at 
which  we  have  arrived. 

(1)  We  have  found  no  good  reason  for  separating  the 
J  and  E  of  the  critics,  and  regarding  them  as  independent 
documents ;  and  as  little  for  placing  their  origin  as  late  as 
the  ninth  or  eighth  century.     We  attach,  as  formerly  said, 
no  importance  to  the  supposed  mirroring  of  later  events  in 
the  narratives,  on  which  the  argument  for  a  late  date  is 
chiefly  founded.2    Gunkel,  we  saw,  can  find  no  trace  in  the 
tradition  in  Genesis,  apart  from   the  reference  to  Edom 
(chap,  xxvil  40),  which  looks  beyond  900  B.C.;*  and  the 
bulk  of  the  JE  narrative  may  well  go  back  to  Mosaic  or 
immediately  post-Mosaic  times.     The  older  scholars  did  not 
feel  the  need  of  bringing  it,  at  latest,  below  the  days  of  the 
undivided  kingdom,  and  there  is  no  new  evidence. 

(2)  We  have  been  led,  on  historical  and  critical  grounds, 
to  reject  the  theory  of  the  Josianic  origin  of  Deuteronomy, 
and,  in  accordance  with  the  claim  of  the  book  itself,  to 
affirm   the  genuineness  of    the    Deuteronomic  discourses, 
substantially  in  the  form  in  which  we  have  them.     But 
Deuteronomy,  as  repeatedly  shown,  attests  the  existence 
and  Mosaic  character  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,4  founds 
upon  the  JE  history,  and  involves  at  least  the  presence  of  a 
measure  of  Levitical  legislation.5 

1  Cf.  Harnack,  Chron.  d.  Altehrist.  Lit.,  p.  viii. 

1  See  above,  pp.  111-12.  Kuenen  says  :  "  References  to  historical  facts, 
.v  eh  as  might  give  a  clue  to  the  dates  of  composition,  are  exttvniely  rare  in 
the  '  prophetic  narratives  of  the  Hezateuch.'  — Hex.  p.  237.  Still  be  finds 
a  few,  as  he  thinks,  in  Edom,  the  wars  of  the  Syrians,  etc.  In  P  there  are 
none  such. 

>  Genesis,  p.  Ixii.     See  above  on  Edom,  pp.  112,  209  ;  also  below,  p.  878. 

4  Dillmann  puts  the  Decalogue  and  Book  of  the  Covenant  "in  the  first 
days  of  the  possession  of  the  land,  at  latest  in  the  days  of  Samuel." — J 
Jo».  p.  644.     He  finds  a  few  traces  of  later  revision. 

»  See  above,  Chap.  VIII. 


372       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

(3)  "We  have  found  that  there  are  the  strongest  critical 
reasons  for  denying  that  the  P  vsriting  (the  peculiarities  of 
which  are  acknowledged)  ever  subsisted  as  an  independent 
document,  and  for  regarding  it,  especially  in  Genesis,  as 
mainly  a  "framework"  enclosing  the  contents  of  JE,1 
though  it  has  also,  at  certain  points,  its  original,  and,  in 
parts,  considerable  contributions  to  bring  to  the  history. 
We  found  ourselves  compelled  to  reject  the  post-exilian 
date  assigned  to  the  laws  in  this  writing  by  the  critics ;  but 
equally  (here  in  agreement  with  the  Wellhausen  school) 
the  mediating  view  of  those  who  regard  the  Code  as  a 
private  document  originating  in  priestly  circles  under  the 
monarchy.2  There  remains  as  the  only  alternative  to  the 
post-exilian  date  the  view — which  was  also  that  of  the 
older  scholars — of  the  substantially  Mosaic  origin  of  the 
laws.3  It  has  been  seen  that  these  contain  no  anachronisms, 
but  keep  strictly  within  the  limits  of  the  Mosaic  age.4  If, 
however,  the  laws  are  early,  there  can  be  no  good  reason  for 
doubting  the  antiquity  of  the  history  with  which  they  are 
connected,  for  it  was  simply  the  assumption  of  the  late  date 
of  the  laws  which  led,  for  consistency's  sake,  to  the  putting 
of  the  history  late.5  Further,  from  the  close  relation 
subsisting  between  P  and  JE  in  the  narratives,  we  are 
compelled  to  assign  both,  as  elements  in  a  composite  work, 
to  practically  the  same  age. 

3.  Taking  the  Book  of  Genesis  by  itself,  we  may  con- 
fidently affirm  that,  apart  from  the  few  words  and  phrases 
commonly  adduced,  as  "The  Canaanite  was  then  in  the 
land,"6  "  Before  there  reigned  any  king  over  the  children  of 
Israel,"7  there  are  no  indications  which  point  necessarily 
beyond  the  Mosaic  age,8  and  even  these  do  not  point  later 
than  the  early  days  of  the  kingdom — if  they  do  even  this. 

1  See  earlier  in  chapter,  pp.  340  ff.         a  See  above,  Chap.  IX.  pp.  326  ff. 
3  Cf.  pp.  328-29  above.  4  See  above,  p.  294. 

8  See  above,  pp.  200,  334. 

6  Gen.  xii.  6  ;  xiii.  7.     The  proper  meaning  of  these  passages  seems  to 
us  to  be  that  the  Canaanites — comparatively  recent  settlers  (cf.  Gen.  xiv. 
5-7  ;  Deut.  ii.  10-12,  20-23  ;  see  below,  p.  529) — were  already  in  the  land 
when  Abraham  entered  it.    No  Jew  needed  to  be  informed  that  the  Canaanites 
had  not  then  been  dispossessed. 

7  Gen.  xxxvi.  81. 

8  Whether  as  part  of  the  original  text,  or  a  reviser's  note,  the  words 
naturally  suggest  that  when  they  were  written  kings  were  reigning  in 
Israel.     The  list  of  Edom's  kings,  on  the  other  hand,  does  not  necessarily 


THE  PRIESTLY  WHITING.     II.  DOCUMENT    373 

"The  Book  of  Genesis,"  siiys  Kuenen  himself,  in  words 
a  In -july  quoted,  "may  here  be  left  out  of  account,  since 
the  picture  it  contains  of  the  age  of  the  patriarchs  gives  no 
unequivocal  indications  of  the  period  at  which  it  was 
produced."1  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  not  a  few  in- 
dications in  the  book,  as  well  as  references  to  it  in  other 
books,  which  imply  a  high  antiquity — this,  also,  especially 
in  its  Elohistic  parts.  There  is  reason  for  believing  that  the 
narratives  of  the  creation  and  the  flood  in  the  P  sections  are 
very  old.8  The  Fourth  Commandment  in  Exodus  is  based, 
both  in  chap.  xx.  11  and  chap.  xxxi.  17,  on  the  sabbath- 
rest  of  God  in  Gen.  ii.  1-3 — a  fact  doubly  significant  if,  as 
Graf  allows,  "  the  Decalogue  in  the  form  in  which  it  appears 
handed  down  in  Ex.  xx.  is  manifestly  older  and  more 
original  than  that  in  Deut.  v."8  Deut.  iv.  32  seems  to  be 
a  clear  reference  to  the  Elohistic  account  of  the  creation, 
witli  its  characteristic  word  bara  ("  in  the  day  when 
Kl'ihim  created  man  upon  the  earth").  The  list  of  the 
eight  kings  of  Edom  in  Gen.  xxxvi.,  which  stops  with 
Hadar  (ver.  39),  apparently  a  person  still  living,  points  to  a 
date  considerably  earlier  than  Saul  or  David,  when  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  kingdom  ceased.4  Colenso,  who  is  our  ally 
here  against  the  post-exilian  theory  of  the  P  narrative,  points 
out  quite  a  number  of  other  expressions  which  look  back 
to  Genesis.6  He  mentions,  e.g.,  the  phrase  in  Deuteronomy, 
"  Unto  them  and  to  their  seed  after  them "  (chaps,  i.  8, 
iv.  37,  x.  15),  in  which  there  seems  allusion  to  the  re- 

earry  us  beyond  the  Mosaic  age,  and  can  hardly  be  extended  to  the  time  of 
Sauf  (see  below).  Delitzach  says  on  the  passage  :  "It  does  not  necessarily 
follow  that  the  writer  lived  till  the  time  of  the  Israelite  kingdom,  though 
it  looks  like  it." —  Genesis,  ii.  p.  247. 

1  Hex.  p.  42.  Cf.  above,  p.  111.  Dr.  Driver  says  on  the  above  allusions  : 
"These  are  isolated  passages,  the  inferences  naturally  authorized  by  which 
mi^lit  not  impossibly  be  neutralized  by  the  supposition  that  they  were  later 
additions  to  the  original  narrative,  and  did  not  consequently  determine  by 
themselves  the  date  of  the  book  as  a  whole." — Genesis,  p.  xv. 

•See  next  chapter,  pp.  402  ff. 

»  Geschicht.  Biicker,  p.  19  ;  of.  Delitzsch,  Genesis,  i.  pp.  30-31 ;  Colenso, 
Pent.  Pt  vi.  p.  684  ;  App.  pp.  124  ff. 

4  Edom  was  under  kings  in  Moses'  time  (Num.  xx.  14),  and  it  ia 
pomible  that  Hadar  may  be  the  king  then  referred  to ;  at  least  no  stretch 
of  reigns  can  easily  bring  Hadar  down  to  the  time  of  Saul.  Delitzsch  says  : 
"There  is  nothing  against  the  supposition  that  Q  [  =  PJis  here  communi- 
cating a  document  whose  original  author  was  a  contemporary  of  Moses,  and 
survived  to  the  entry  into  the  promised  land."— Gem-sis,  ii.  p.  249. 

8  Pent.  Pt  vi.,  as  above. 


374       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

curring  P  formula  in  Gen.  xvii.  8;  xxxv.  12;  xlviii.  2;  cf. 
chaps,  ix.  19,  xvii.  7,  10,  19 ;  the  words  in  Deut.  xxix.  13, 
"  that  He  may  be  to  thee  an  Elohim,"  which  seems  distinctly 
to  refer  to  Gen.  xvii.  7,  8,  where  alone  we  have  such  a 
promise  under  solemn  covenant ;  the  declaration  in  Isa.  liv.  9 
(at  least  not  pos£-exilian),  "  I  have  sworn  that  as  the  waters 
of  Noah  should  no  more  go  over  the  earth,"  etc.,  which 
refers  to  the  P  phraseology  and  covenant  in  Gen.  ix.  11. 
The  cumulative  effect  of  these  allusions,  as  against  the 
modern  theory,  is  very  great. 

4.  We  have  not  attempted  to  go  into  detailed  argument 
on  the  history  of  the  language,1  nor  to  rebut  objections, 
more  frequently  heard  earlier  than  now,2  on  the  supposed 
ignorance  of  the  Hebrews  in  the  Mosaic  age  of  the  art  of 
writing.  The  discussion  of  the  language  lies  beyond  our 
province ;  and  discovery,  as  already  seen,  has  thrown  such 
remarkable  light  on  the  existence,  and  wide  diffusion  of 
writing,  in  antiquity,  specially  among  the  peoples  with 
whom  the  Hebrews  were  brought  most  closely  into  contact 
(Babylonia,  Egypt,  Palestine),3  as  to  place  the  possibility 
of  such  literary  labours  as  we  have  been  supposing  beyond 
reasonable  doubt.  Few,  therefore,  now  found  on  the 
assumption  that  writing  was  unknown,  or  not  practised, 
among  the  early  Hebrews ; 4  less  even  is  heard  of  the  un- 
likelihood of  an  "  undisciplined  horde  "  of  nomads  possess- 
ing a  knowledge  of  letters.5  Every  indication  shows  that 
the  Hebrews,  as  they  came  up  out  of  Egypt,  were  not  a 
people  of  this  character,  but  had  a  good  knowledge  of  the 
arts  and  ways  of  civilised  life.6  The  Pentateuch,  we  saw 

1  Cf.  the  general  argument  in  Chap.  III. 

2  The   argument  was   formerly  very  often  urged,  as  by  Von   Bohlen, 
Hartmann,  etc.,  and  is  still  occasionally  met  with.    Cf.  Reusa,  e.g.,  Gesehichte 
des  A.T.,   p.    96.     Even   DilJniann   thinks  it    against  the   Mosaic  com- 
position  of  the  books  that  writing  was  not  generally  practised  in   the 
beginning  of  the  people's  history  (Num.-Jos.  p.  594).     Later  discoveries 
would  probably  have  altered  his  opinion. 

8  Cf.  above,  pp.  78  if. ;  see  further  in  next  chapter. 

4  Kuenen  (quoted  by  Vos)  says:  "That  the  Israelites  possessed  an 
alphabet,  and  knew  the  art  of  writing,  in  the  Mosaic  age,  is  not  subject 
to  reasonable  doubt,  and  is  now  almost  universally  ailmitted."  Kautzsch, 
we  have  seen  (p.  76),  allows  that  Judg.  viii.  14.  (R.V.)  proves  that  "the 
art  of  writing  had  been  gradually  disseminated  among  the  lower  people." — 
Lit.  o/O.T.,  p.  10. 

8  Thus  Von  Bohlen,  etc.  Most  older  scholars,  however,  e.g.,  Bleek, 
upheld  the  Mosaic  use  of  writing.  So  Colenso. 

8  See  above,  pp.  79,  104,  154. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     II.  DOCUMENT     375 

before,  assunu's  a  knowledge  of  the  art  of  writing;1  and 
if  such  knowledge  was  possessed  by  Moses,  and  those  about 
him,  there  can  be  little  doubt  but  that  it  would  be  used. 
There  seems,  accordingly,  no  bar  in  the  way  of  the  supposition 
that  in  the  age  of  Moses  the  main  features  of  the  language 
as  a  vehicle  of  literary  expression  were  already  established, 
and,  in  some  form  of  script,  the  use  of  writing  may  go  back 
much  earlier.2  On  this  point  Dr.  Driver  says :  "  It  is  not 
denied  that  the  patriarchs  possessed  the  art  of  writing"; 
but  he  thinks  that  the  use  of  documents  from  the  patriarchal 
age  is  "  a  mere  hypothesis,  for  the  truth  of  which  no  positive 
grounds  can  be  alleged." 8  Even  if  it  were  so,  it  would  be 
in  no  worse  case  than  much  in  the  critical  view  itself, 
which,  if  anything  in  the  world  ever  was,  is  hypothesis 
built  on  hypothesis.4  The  value  of  a  hypothesis  is  the 
degree  in  which  it  explains  facts,  and,  in  the  silence  of 
the  Book  of  Genesis,6  we  can  only  reason  from  general 
probabilities.  But  the  probabilities,  derived  from  the  state 
of  culture  at  the  time,  from  the  fixed  and  circumstantial 
character  of  the  tradition,  and  from  the  archaeological 
notices  embedded  in  the  book,'  are,  we  think,  strong,  that 
the  Hebrews,  even  in  the  patriarchal  age,  were  to  some  extent 
acquainted  with  books  and  writing.  If  so,  we  may  believe 
that  at  an  early  period,  in  Egypt  under  Joseph,  if  not  before, 
attempts  would  be  made  to  set  down  things  in  writing.7 

5.  "We  have  used  the  term  "collaboration"  and  "co- 
operation "  to  express  the  kind  and  manner  of  the  activity 
which,  in  our  view,  brought  the  Pentateuchal  books  into 
their  present  shape,8  less,  however,  as  suggesting  a  definite 
theory  of  origin,  than  as  indicating  the  labour  of  original 
composers,  working  with  a  common  aim,  and  towards  a 
common  end,  in  contrast  with  the  idea  of  late  irresponsible 
redactors,  combining,  altering,  manipulating,  enlarging  at 

1  See  above,  pp.  80  ff. 

'The  question  of  the  script  used  in  early  Hebrew  writing  (old 
Phoenician,  cuneiform,  Minn-ant)  ia  one  of  great  difficulty,  on  which 
opinions  are  much  divided.  In  the  view  of  some  the  use  of  the  Mm-nician 
alphabet  by  the  Israelites  does  not  go  back  beyond  about  1000  B.C.  But 
this  is  unlikely.  See  Note  D  on  Early  Hebrew  Writing. 

1  Genesis,  p.  zlii.  4  See  Note  £  on  Hypotheses  in  Criticism. 

8  The  silence  most  not  be  pressed  too  far.     See  above,  p.  80. 

•  See  above,  pp.  78  ff. ;   and  cf.  next  chapter. 

7  Cf.  Rommel,  Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition,  pp.  277,  296. 

•  See  above,  pp.  216,  354. 


376       DIFFICULTIES  AND  PERPLEXITIES: 

pleasure.  It  has  been  shown  how  the  critical  theory  itself 
tends  to  approximate  to  this  idea  of  "  co-operation  "  in  the 
production  of  the  Hexateuch,1  though  at  the  other  end  of 
the  development.  What  it  puts  at  the  end,  we  are  disposed 
to  transfer  to  the  beginning. 

Beyond  this  we  do  not  feel  it  possible  to  go  with  any 
degree  of  confidence.  It  may  very  well  be — though  every- 
thing here  is  more  or  less  conjectural — that,  as  already 
hinted,  the  original  JEP  history  and  Code  embraced,  not 
simply  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  but  a  brief  summary  of 
the  Levitical  ordinances,  analogous,  as  Dillmann  thinks,  to 
the  so-called  Law  of  Holiness ;  possibly  also,  as  Delitzsch 
supposes,  a  short  narrative,  in  its  proper  place,  of  the  last 
discourses  of  Moses,  and  of  his  death.2  We  have  seen 
that  Deuteronomy,  in  its  original  form,  was  probably  an 
independent  work ;  the  priestly  laws,  also,  would  be  at  first 
chiefly  in  the  hands  of  the  priests.  Later,  but  still,  in  our 
opinion,  early — possibly  in  the  times  immediately  succeeding 
the  conquest,  but  not  later  than  the  days  of  the  undivided 
kingdom — the  original  work  would  be  enlarged  by  union  with 
Deuteronomy,  and  by  incorporation  of  the  larger  mass  of 
Levitical  material.  In  some  such  way,  with  possible  re- 
vision by  Ezra,  or  whoever  else  gave  the  work  its  final 
canonical  shape,  our  Pentateuch  may  have  arisen. 

It  is  difficult,  however,  to  suppose  that  this  large  work, 
assuming  its  origin  to  be  as  early  as  we  have  suggested, 
ever  had,  in  its  completeness,  any  wide  circulation,  or  was 
frequently  copied  in  its  entirety.  As  in  the  Christian 
Church,  before  the  days  of  printing,  it  was  customary  to 
copy  out  selected  books  and  portions,  as  the  Psalter,  or 
the  Gospels ;  so,  it  may  reasonably  be  presumed,  the  parts 
of  the  Pentateuch  copied  out  for  general  use,  and  in  more 
common  circulation,  would  ordinarily  be  those  to  which  we 
still  turn  as  the  more  interesting  and  edifying — the  story 
of  the  patriarchs  and  of  Moses,  the  history  of  the  Exodus 
and  the  wanderings,  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  short  digests 
of  laws,  etc.  The  detailed  Levitical  Code  would  be  left  to 
the  priests,  and  would  be  known  mainly  through  the  praxis, 

1  See  Note  F  on  the  idea  of  "  Co-operation  "  in  Critical  Theory. 

*  See  above,  p.  284.  Similarly,  in  place  of  the  present  detailed  de- 
scriptions, there  may  have  been  snorter  accounts  of  the  making  of  the  ark 
and  tabernacle. 


THE  PRIESTLY  WRITING.     II.  DOCUMENT     377 

or  by  oral  instruction  at  the  sanctuary.  The  "law  of 
Jehovah,"  of  which  we  read  so  much  in  the  Psalter,  by 
which  the  piety  of  the  godly  in  Israel  was  nourished,  which 
enlightened,  converted,  directed,  warned,  comforted,  cleansed, 
made  fruitful,  the  souls  that  delighted  in  it,  was  assuredly, 
at  before  remarked,1  something  very  different  from  the  dry 
Levitical  regulations.  The  versions  of  these  books  in 
circulation  would  also  have  their  vicissitudes;  would 
undergo  the  usual  textual  corruptions ;  may  have  received 
unauthorised  modifications  or  additions;  may  have  had 
their  Jehovistic  and  Elohistic  recensions.  But  the  sense  in 
pious  minds  that  it  was  Jehovah's  "  law  " — embodying  the 
"  words  of  His  lips  "  * — which  they  were  dealing  with  would 
check  rash  freedoms,  and  the  means  of  correction  would 
never  be  wholly  lost  God's  people  had  a  "Bible"  then, 
and,  as  it  comes  to  us  from  their  hands,  we  may  cherish 
the  confidence  that  it  has  suffered  no  change  which  unfits 
it  for  being  our  Bible  also.8 

1  See  above,  pp.  263-64. 

*  Ps.  xvii.  4 ;  of.  Pea.  i.,  xviii.  21,  22,  xix.  7-11,  XXY.,  etc. 

1  The  statements  made  as  to  the  liberties  taken  with  the  text  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  in  pre-Christian  times  are  often  much  too  sweeping. 
See  Note  C  on  the  State  of  the  Hebrew  Text 


APPENDIX   TO   CHAPTEE  X 

THE  LATEK  HISTORICAL  BOOKS 

IT  is  not  proposed  to  discuss  at  length  the  problems  con- 
nected with  the  age,  authorship,  and  credibility  of  the  later 
historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Incidentally  the 
history  in  the  later  books  has  been  defended  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapters,  and  will  receive  further  illustration  in  the 
chapter  on  archaeology.  The  Pentateuchal  question  is,  as 
everyone  acknowledges,  the  fundamental  one  in  Old  Testa- 
ment criticism.  If  that  stone  can  be  dislodged,  the  critics 
have  shaken  the  edifice  of  the  Old  Testament  to  its  base. 
If  the  attack  on  that  foundation  is  repelled,  the  succeeding 
history  has  not  much  to  fear  from  assault.  It  will  be 
sufficient  here  to  indicate  the  bearings  of  the  results  already 
arrived  at  on  the  composition  and  authority  of  the  later 
books. 

I.  We  may  briefly  indicate,  first,  the  bearing  of  the 
acceptance  of  the  critical  theory  on  the  age  and  value  of 
the  books  in  question. 

1.  If  the  P  element  in  the  Pentateuch  is  of  exilian  or 
post-exilian  date,  then  necessarily  all  assumed  P  sections 
in  the  Book  of  Joshua  must  be  post-exilian  also,  and,  on 
the  theory,  destitute  of  historical  worth.  This  condemns, 
e.g.,  the  whole  account  of  the  division  of  the  land  in  the 
second  half  of  Joshua.1  Similarly,  all  passages  or  allusions 
in  later  books,  which  imply  the  existence  of  P  or  its  institu- 
tions must  (or  may)  be  held  to  be  late.  Everything  of  this 
nature,  therefore, — tent  of  meeting,  Levites,  high  priest,  etc., — 
is  usually  struck  out  as  interpolation.  The  Levitical 
representations  in  the  Books  of  Chronicles  are  a  priori 
discredited,  and  put  out  of  court  as  worthless. 

1  Of.  below,  pp.  379-80. 
878 


THE  LATER  HISTORICAL  BOOKS          379 

2.  In  the  same  way,  if  Deuteronomy  is   a   composition 
of  the  age  of  Josiah,  then  all  Deuteronomic  sections,  or 
revisions    in    the     D    style,    of    the    historical    books, 
must  be  later  than  Deuteronomy,  and  cannot  be  taken  as 
genuine  history.    Large  sections  of  Joshua — the  reading 
of  the  law  on  Mount  Ebal,  e.g.,  chap.  viii.   30  if. — and  of 
Judges,  are  thus  discredited  as   the   unhistorical  work   of 
a  D1  or  D2,  etc.1     The   Books  of  Kings  are  a  late  com- 
pilation from   a   Deuteronomic  point  of  view,  and  exhibit 
a  revision  of  the  history  in  a  Deuteronomic  spirit  which 
amounts,  in  its  effect,  to  a  falsification  of  it.2     The  mystery 
is  why  this  Deuteronomic  revision  has  left  nearly  untouched 
the  Books  of  Samuel,8  and,  in  view  of  most,  the  narratives 
of  the  Pentateuch.4 

3.  If  the  JE  narratives  belong  at  earliest  to  the  ninth  or 
eighth  centuries,  a  presumption  is  created,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  critics,  in  favour  of  their  legendary  character,  and 
all  additions  or  redactions  of  members  of  the  "  school "  must 
be  later,  and  less  trustworthy,  still     As  Deuteronomy  rests 
on  the  JE  histories,  the  late  date  of  that  book  is  held  to 
be  confirmed. 

II.  The  matter  presents  itself  in  a  very  different  light 
when  looked  at  from  the  opposite  point  of  view. 

1.  If  the  P  sections  in  the  Pentateuch  are  not  of  post- 
exilian  date,  but  go  back  to  early  times,  there  is  no  need 
for  putting  the  P  sections  in  Joshua  late ;  or  for  expunging 
the  allusions  to  priesthood  and  tabernacle  in  the  historical 
books ;  or  even,  on  this  ground,  for  discrediting  the  state- 
ments of  the  Books  of  Chronicles.6  Delitzsch,  e.g.,  pre- 
cisely inverting  the  usual  style  of  argument,  finds  his 
conclusion  that  "the  literary  activity  of  the  Eluhistic  pen 
reaches  back  to  ancient  times  nearly  approaching  those 
of  Moses  "  actually  "  confirmed  by  the  Book  of  Joshua,"  with 
its  account  of  the  division  of  the  lnnd.  "  Modern  criticism," 
he  says,  "  indeed  greatly  depreciates  the  historical  authority 

1  Cf.  Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Jvrati,  p.  235. 

1  Ibid.  pp.  228,  274,  281,  etc. 

1  KnutzHch  finds  a  few  traces  of  Deuteronomic  revision  in  Samuel  (Lit. 
of  O.T.,  pp.  95-96,  238);  Driver  apparently  (with  Budde)  fewer  (Intrnd. 
pp.  173,  188). 

4  "Comparatively  infrequent"  (Kautzsch,  p.  95). 

•  See  below,  pp.  388-89. 


380  APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  X 

of  the  priestly  narrator  in  matters  relating  to  the  history 
of  the  conquest;  but  the  priestly  narrator  wrote  also  the 
main  bulk  of  the  account  of  the  division,  and  this  may 
lay  claim  to  documentary  authority.  For  that  this  history 
of  the  division  is  based  upon  written  documents  may  be 
conjectured  from  its  very  nature,  while  the  sepher  (book) 
of  the  commissioners  entrusted  with  the  task  of  describing 
the  land  (chap,  xviii.  9),  shows  that  the  division  of  the  land 
was  carried  out  with  legal  accuracy.  ...  It  is  therefore 
quite  an  arbitrary  assertion,  at  least  with  respect  to  the 
history  of  the  division,  that  the  priestly  narrator  of  the 
Book  of  Joshua  was  of  more  recent  times  than  the  Jehovist 
and  the  Deuteronomian,  and  it  is  certainly  possible  that 
the  Deuteronomian  himself  composed  and  formed  the  Book 
of  Joshua  from  Jehovistic  and  Elohistic  models."  1 

2.  If  Deuteronomy  is  not  late,  but  early,  and  if  the 
discourses  contained  in  it  are  in  substance  really  Mosaic, 
then  the  reason  falls  for  discrediting  the  D  sections  and 
colouring  in  Joshua,  Judges,  and  Kings.  A  good  deal,  we 
shall  see  below,2  is  taken  for  granted  in  speaking  of 
"  Deuteronomic  "  revision.  In  any  case,  assuming  such  to 
be  present,  it  neither,  on  the  view  we  uphold,  argues  late 
date  nor  unhistorical  presentation.  There  is  no  longer 
ground,  e.g.,  for  questioning  the  genuineness  in  substance 
of  such  speeches  as  Solomon's  at  the  dedication  of  the 
temple  (1  Kings  viii.),  or  the  justice  of  the  condemnation 
of  the  toleration  of  high  places;  or  for  regarding  these 
"Deuteronomic"  speeches  as  compositions  of  an  exilian 
compiler.  We  do  not  deny  that  there  may  be  a  measure 
of  freedom  in  the  reproduction  of  the  speeches,  but  they 
need  not  on  that  account  be  late,  or  untrue  to  the  occasion 
on  which  they  were  delivered. 

III.  The  critical  treatment  of  the  historical  books  is 
itself  a  strong  argument  for  the  second  of  these  views 
rather  than  the  first.  Not  only  does  the  critical  hypothesis 
imply  invention  and  falsification  of  history  on  an  unpre- 
cedented scale,  but  it  results  in  a  disintegration  of  the 


p.  49.     See  above,  p.  242,  and  cf.  Konig,  art.   "Judges,"  in 
Hastings'  Diet,  of  Bible,  who  shows  that  the  partition  is  implied  in  the 
"lot"  of  Judg.  L  (ii.  p.  820). 
3  See  also  above,  p.  255. 


THE  LATER  HISTORICAL  BOOKS          381 

books  in  a  fashion  as  complicated  and  bewildering  as  in 
the  Pentateuch  analysis,  and  often,  as  the  radical  disagree- 
ment of  critics  shows,  as  assumptive  and  arbitrary. 

The  Book  of  Joshua  has  already  been  referred  to.  A 
few  remarks  may  be  made  on  the  others. 

In  general,  it  is  not  denied  that  the  historical  books 
are  compilations,  for  the  most  part,  from  older  writings, 
which  criticism  is  quite  within  its  rights  in  endeavouring 
to  distinguish  if  it  can.  It  is  the  fact  that  the  books 
embody  old  and  authentic  material  which  gives  them  their 
value.  The  narratives  incorporated  in  the  Book  of  Judges, 
e.g.,  must  in  many  cases  have  taken  shape  not  long  after 
the  events  which  they  relate, — the  Song  of  Deborah  is 
practically  contemporary,1 — and  the  sources  of  the  Books 
of  Samuel  are,  in  like  manner,  very  old.  There  seems  no 
ground  for  doubting  the  view,  borne  out  by  the  notices  in 
the  later  books,  that  the  prophets  themselves — from  Samuel 
on — acted  as  the  sacred  "  historiographers  "  of  their  nation, 
and  that  it  is  to  narratives  composed  by  them  that  we  owe 
the  greater  part  of  the  material  embodied  in  our  canonical 
writings*  (hence  the  name  "former  prophets"  applied  to 
Joshua — 2  Kings,  excepting  Ruth).  What  is  objected  to  is 
not  a  cautious  discrimination  based  on  the  clear  phenomena 
of  the  books,  but  the  assumption  of  the  ability  to  dissect 
a  historic  book  into  its  minutest  parts,  and  distribute  out 
the  fragments  to  writers  of  widely  separated  ages,  with 
frequently  a  wholesale  impeachment  of  the  integrity  of 
the  composers. 

1.  We  take  the  Book  of  Judges  as  a  first  example.     In 

1  See  above,  p.  76.  Such  allusions,  e.g.,  as  those  to  Jerusalem  and  Gezer 
(chap.  i.  21,  29),  point  to  a  date  hefore  the  monarchy,  though  the  book  as 
a  whole  implies  that  it  was  compiled  when  the  kingdom  was  settled 
(chaps,  xvii.  6,  xviii.  1,  xix.  1,  etc.). 

•Cf.  Kirkpatrick,  Divine  Library  of  O.T.,  pp.  13  tt.  (so  in  Introd.  to 
Samuel);  Ottlry,  Aspects  of  O.T.,  p.  145,  etc.  ;  of  older  writers,  Bleek, 
Introd.  i.  pp.  175  ff.  ;  S.  Davidson,  Introd.  toO.T.,\\.  pp.  68-69,  682  ff.,  etc. 
Ottley  says:  "There  is  little  reason  to  doubt  that  the  documents  which 
form  the  substratum  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  were  official  notices 
of  political  events,  and  nearly  conteni|K>iary  narratives,  some  of  which  muy 
reasonably  b«  sup|x>sn|  in  have  been  written  bv  prophets  like  Qad,  Nathan, 
Iddo,  and  others"  (p.  145).  See  Kirk|>atrick  s  remarks  (Samuel,  p.  10) 
on  the  view  "that  Samuel,  Nathan,  and  God  were  the  subjects,  not  the 
Authors,  of  the  works  referred  to."  In  some  cases  the  fact  is  |>aU-nt 
that  the  work  is  a  history  by  the  person  named  ;  the  presumption  is  it  woa 
so  in  all.  Cf.  S.  Davidson,  Introd.  ii.  pp.  68-69 ;  Zockler,  Chronidct 
("Lange"),  pp.  17  ff. ;  etc. 


382  APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  X 

Kautzsch,  who  is  by  no  means  the  extremest  of  the  critics, 
we  have  the  book  parcelled  out  into  a  great  number  of 
elements.  We  have  H1,  an  older  stratum  of  Hero-Stories, 
constituting  the  nucleus  of  the  book ;  H2,  Hero-Stories  from 
the  early  kingly  period;  ri,  fragments  of  a  list  of  Judges 
from  the  later  kingly  period;  Ki,  the  first  Deuteronomic 
compiler;  N  and  N1,  pre-Deuteronomic  compilers  of  the 
narratives  in  the  appendix  ("  chaps,  xx.,  xxi.  originally  came 
from  this  source,  but  have  been  thoroughly  revised  by  a 
hand  related  to  the  Priests'  Code  ") ;  K,  the  post-exilic  editor 
or  editors  of  the  present  book.  In  addition  there  are  "  later 
glosses"  and  "  passages  of  doubtful  origin"  (Jephthah).  As 
showing  the  minuteness  of  the  analysis,  we  may  give  the 
parts  attributed  to  N1— "xvii.  2-4,  6,  12 ;  xviii.  la,  2*,  7*. 
10&,  14*,  15*,  18*,  20*,  30." 1  The  asterisks  mean  worked 
over  by  redactors.  Does  criticism  here  by  its  very  minute- 
ness not  destroy  confidence  in  itself  ? 2 

It  is  the  Deuteronomic  editor  of  Judges  who,  we 
are  told,  has  supplied  the  introduction  and  unhistorical 
"scheme"  of  the  book,  representing  the  alternate  declen- 
sions and  repentances  of  the  people,  with  their  corre- 
sponding experiences  of  oppression  and  deliverance.  This 
is  declared  to  be  doubly  unhistorical:  (1)  As  picturing  the 
people  as  a  unity,  "  acting  together,  suffering  together,  re- 
penting together,  ruled  over  as  a  whole  by  one  judge  at  a 
time,"  whereas  "  up  to  that  time  the  Hebrew  tribes  had  no 
such  sense  of  unity";3  and  (2)  as  crediting  them  with  a 
religious  knowledge  and  ideal  of  duty  they  did  not  possess. 
"  There  is  no  conception  of  spiritual  worship  or  moral  duty 
in  the  book."4  On  which  representations  three  things,  in 
reply,  may  be  said : — 

(1)  Is  it  perfectly  clear — Konig  at  least  thinks  not 6 — 

1LM.  ofO.T.,  pp.  234-36. 

a  See  the  searching  criticism  of  the  analysis  and  arguments  of  Budde  and 
others  by  Konig  in  art.  "Judges,"  in  Diet,  of  Bible.  A  good  conspectus  of 
the  agreements  and  differences  of  critical  opinion  is  given  in  the  tables  in 
the  introduction  to  Nowack's  Commentary  on  Judges  and  Ruth  ("  Hand- 
kommentar"),  pp.  xxiv  ff. 

8  Thatcher,  Judges  ( "  Cent.  Bible"),  p.  6.  So  Driver,  Moore,  Nowack, 
etc.,  after  Wellhausen,  Compos,  d.  Hex.  pp.  229-30  ;  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  231, 
233-35. 

4  Ibid.  p.  23. 

5  "Judges"  in  Diet,  of  Bible,  ii.  pp.  812,  816  ;  cf.  Einhit.  pp.  251-54. 
Moore  thinks  there  is  not  sufficient  ground  for  identifying  this  Deuteronomic 
author  of  the  preface  and  framework  of  Judges    "with  anyone  of  the 


THE  LATER  HISTORICAL  BOOKS          383 

that  the  introduction  and  framework  are  Deuteronomic  in  the 
sense  intended  ?  But  whether  they  are  or  not,  it  is  still  to 
be  shown  that  the  representation  of  alternate  declension  and 
deliverance  given  as  the  interpretation  of  the  history  is  false 
to  the  facts.  Professor  Robertson  points  out  very  pertinently 
that  the  summary  in  Judges  gives  precisely  the  same  picture 
of  the  people's  behaviour  as  the  prophets  give  after.1  It  is 
not  the  Book  of  Judges  simply,  but  Israel's  whole  repre- 
sentation of  its  history — early  and  late — that  is  challenged. 

(2)  It  is  at  least  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  Israel  had 
no  sense  of  its  unity.  There  are  the  best  grounds  for 
believing  that  Israel,  in  the  initial  stages  of  the  conquest, 
acted  as  one  people  under  Joshua,2  and  even  when  the  tribes 
settled  in  their  various  regions,  this  sense  of  unity  was  never 
wholly  lost.8  A  consciousness  of  unity  is  already  very 
strongly  expressed  in  the  Song  of  Deborah,  and  in  chaps,  xx., 
xxi.,  which  for  that  very  reason  (as  by  Thatcher)  *  is  made 
post-exilian.  A  critic  like  Konig  says :  "  The  assertion  that 
in  the  time  of  the  Judges  '  a  common  acting  on  the  part  of 
the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  is  excluded '  (Budde  on  chaps,  xix.- 
xxi.)  is  quite  ungrounded.  ...  If  in  the  period  of  the  Judges 
one  could  not  entertain  the  notion  that  a  common  danger  to 
Israel  could  not  be  warded  off  by  the  common  action  of  all 
the  tribes,  one  could  not  have  blamed  those  tribes  which 
kept  aloof  in  the  struggle  against  the  northern  Canaanites 
(Judg.  v.  15-17)."  6  "It  is  not  only  in  prose,"  says  Dr. 
A.  B.  Davidson, "  that  this  mode  of  speech  prevails,  in  which 
it  might  be  due  to  later  conceptions,  and  to  a  point  of  view 
taken  after  the  rise  of  the  kingdom;  the  same  manner  of 

Deuteronomic  writers  in  Deuteronomy  or  Joshua,  or  with  the  Deuteronomic 
author  of  Kiugs"  (Judges,  "  Internat.  Crit.  Com."  p.  xvii).  He  puts  him 
later  than  the  sixth  century  B.C. 

1  Rel.  of  Irrael,  pp.  116-17  (see  above,  p.  40).  "This  summary  of 
the  period  might  have  been  written  by  Hosea  himself,  or  by  Amos  ;  and  if 
there  is  any  truth  in  what  they  say  about  prophets  before  them,  anyone 
from  the  days  of  Samuel  might  have  written  it"  (p.  117). 

1  See  above,  p.  241  ;  cf.  Konig,  "Judges,"  ii.  pp.  814,  819. 

•Cf.  the  "all  Israel"  in  Eli's  time  (1  Sam.  ii.  14  ;  iii.  20  ;  see  above, 
p.  17U 

4  .fin/if  a,  p.  17.     On  these  chapters,  see  Itelow. 

*  "Judges,"  in  Did.  of  Bible,  ii.  p.  816.  Cf.  pp.  814,  815,  819.  On 
chap*,  xx. -xxi.  he  says:  "The  present  writer  believes  that  there  are  more 
traces  of  the  unity  of  ancient  Israel  than  are  wont  at  present  to  be  recognised 
by  Home  scholars.  .  .  .  Hence  the  judgment  of  the  present  writer  is  that 
not  the  section  chap,  xx.-xxi.  14  as  a  whole,  hut  only  single  elements  in  it 
(e.g.,  the  round  numbers),  bear  a  secondary  character"  (p.  819). 


384  APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  X 

speaking  appears  in  the  Song  of  Deborah.  ...  In  spite  of 
actual  disintegration,  the  conception  of  an  Israel  forming  a 
unity,  the  people  of  Jehovah,  appears  everywhere." 1 

(3)  It  is  a  still  greater  exaggeration  to  say  that  there  is 
"  no  conception  of  spiritual  worship  or  moral  duty "  in  the 
book.  Higher  religious  and  moral  conceptions,  mingling 
with  the  ruder  elements,  are  implied,2  not  simply  in  the 
recurrent  narratives  of  repentance,  and  in  the  lofty  strains 
of  the  Song  of  Deborah,3  but  in  the  admitted  fact  that  the 
conditions  had  in  them  the  germ  of  the  "  spiritual  and  ethical 
worship  "  *  to  which  the  people  afterwards  attained,  and  in 
the  possibility,  even,  of  such  a  religious  revival  as  we  find 
under  Samuel.5  We  do  not  envy  the  reader  who  can  see 
no  evidences  of  a  spiritual  faith  in  the  history  of  a  man  like 
Gideon.6  Is  there  not  through  all  the  history  a  vein  of 
recognition  of  obligation  to  Jehovah,  of  a  law  of  righteous 
providential  requital,7  of  the  heinousness  of  wanton  cruelty  8 
and  unrestrained  licentiousness  ? 9  The  beautiful  family 
history  of  Euth  also  has  to  be  relegated  to  the  region  of 
post-exilian  fiction  before  the  utter  lack  of  spiritual  religion 
can  be  made  out.10 

The  alleged  P  element  in  Judges  is  found  in  redactional 
notes,  but  chiefly  in  the  alleged  working  over  of  an  older 
narrative  (so  most  think :  not  Wellhausen)  in  chaps,  xx.,  xxi.11 
It  is  this  section  also  (the  story  of  the  Levite  and  his  concu- 

I  O.T.  Prophecy,  pp.  33,  34.     On  the  local  character  of  the  Judges, 
Konig  says  :  "If  an  explanation  of  the  local  origin  of  these  Judges  is  to  be 
sought  for,  it  is  most  natural  to  find  it  in  the  circumstance  that  the  hero 
sprang  up  from  the  tribe  which  felt  most  the  weight  of  the  invader's  oppres- 
sion "  (p.  815). 

8  Cf.  again  Konig,  pp.  816,  821.  3  See  above,  pp.  130-31. 

4  Thatcher,  p.  24. 

8  1  Sam.  vii.     That  Samuel  effected  a  revival  of  religion  even  an  extreme 
scepticism  must  admit.    This  throws  back  light  on  the  repentances  under 
the  Judges. 

9  Judg.  vi.,  vii.  7  E.g.,  Judg.  i.  7  ;  iz.  24,  56. 

8  Judg.  ix.  24,  etc. 

9  Judg.  xix.  23,  24,  30 ;  xx.  6  ff.     Cf.  Konig,  p.  816. 

10  Cf.  Konig,  Einleitung,  pp.  287  ff.     Konig  sees  in  Ruth  an  exilian  re- 
cension of  an  old  writing  of  the  age  of  the  sources  of  Samuel  and  Kings. 
Driver  calls  it  "pre-exilic"  (Introd.  p.  455).     Eeuss,  Oettli,  Strack,  etc., 
also  reject  the  exilian  and  post-exilian  dates. 

II  Driver,   Moore,   Thatcher,  etc.,    divide  chap.   xix.   from  chaps,   xx., 
xxi.,   recognising  the  homogeneity  of  chap.   xix.  with  what  goes  before; 
Wellhausen  apparently  treats  chap,   xix.-xxi.   as  a  whole   (Compos,    pp. 
229  ff.),  and  does  not  admit  duplication  in  chap.  xx.  (cf.  Budde,  Richt. 
vnd  Sam.  p.  389  ;  Moore,  p.  406). 


THE  LATER  HISTORICAL  BOOKS          385 

bine, and  of  the  warwith  Benjamin,  chaps.  xix.-xxi.  14)which, 
in  the  eyes  of  the  critics,  lacks  most  clearly  in  credibility,1 
though  a  historical  kernel  is  sometimes  recognised.  Besides 
the  unity  argument,  and  linguistic  phenomena  thought  to 
betray  a  later  age  (dependent  on  the  assumption  about 
P),2  stress  is  laid  on  the  apparent  exaggeration  of  numbers. 
Such  exaggerations,  assuming  them  to  exist,  may  grow  up 
in  far  less  time  than  the  critics  allow,  and  may  be  pressed 
too  far.3  Dr.  Driver,  in  turn,  exaggerates  when  he  reads  into 
the  text  that  on  the  first  two  days  of  battle  "  not  one  of  the 
25,000  -f  700  of  the  Benjamites  fell."  4  We  are  hardly  dealing 
here  with  head  by  head  counts ;  besides, "  fell,"  "smitten,"  "de- 
stroyed," do  not  necessarily  mean  that  every  man  was  "  slain." 

There  seems  to  us  no  convincing  ground,  apart  from  the 
reasonings  on  D  and  P,  for  placing  the  Book  of  Judges  later 
than  the  period  of  the  undivided  kingdom.  There  is  no 
trace  of  Jerusalem  as  capital,  or  of  the  temple.  The 
expression  "  until  the  day  of  the  captivity  of  the  land "  in 
chap,  xviii.  30,  is  naturally  the  equivalent  of  "  all  the  time 
that  the  house  of  God  was  in  Shiloh"  in  ver.  31.6  It  is 
precarious,  at  least,  to  build  an  argument  for  a  later  date 
on  this  verse  alone. 

2.  A  next  example  of  critical  procedure  is  afforded  by 

1  "The  historical  character  of  chaps,  xx.,  xxi.  1-14,"  says  Moore, 
"will  hardly  be  seriously  maintained  :  in  the  whole  description  of  the  war 
there  is  hardly  a  semblance  of  reality"  (p.  405). 

1  Cf.  Koiiig,  as  above.  In  treating  of  the  relation  to  the  Pentateuch 
sources,  Kbnig  alludes  to  "the  impossibility  of  making  true  progress  in 
critical  science  if  a  number  of  results  are  assumed  as  already  proved,  and 
one  makes  it  his  main  object  always  to  pile  up  higher  storeys  on  the  building 
of  the  literary  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament "  (p.  81 1). 

*  On  the  use  of  round  numbers,  see  below,  p.  390.  The  400,000,  as  a 
number  for  the  whole  armed  force  of  Israel  (chap.  xx.  2,  17),  is  not  out  of 
keeping  with  other  enumerations  (Ex.  xii.  37  ;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  9),  though  it 
is  certainly  improbable  and  perhaps  is  not  meant,  that  all  took  part  in  the 
war  at  Gibeah  (cf.  chap.  xx.  9,  10). 

4  Introd.  p.  169.  Dr.  Driver  unnecessarily  changes  the  26,000  of  chap, 
xx.  15  into  25,000,  after  Cod.  A  of  the  LXX.  The  ordinary  LXX  text  has 
•_':'..  000,  clearly  a  mistake,  and  there  may  be  other  confusions  in  the 
numbers.  Cf.  Kohler,  Bib,  Oesch.  ii.  p.  64. 

8  Bleek,  who  regards  the  Book  of  Judges  as  pre-Deuteronomic,  and  in 
substance  early,  takes  this  view  of  the  passage.  "  The  context  shows  clearly 
that  nothing  else  can  be  meant  by  the  terminus  ad  quern  .  .  .  than  the 
time  indicated  in  ver.  81"  (Introd.  L  p.  884).  Bleek,  Eiehm,  Konig,  etc., 
think  that  "  land  "  is  a  corruption  for  the  (in  Heb.  resembling)  word  "  ark  "  ; 
Strack  puts  the  book  in  the  flourishing  days  of  the  kingdom,  and  thinks 
this  clause  to  be  a  later  addition  (Einleit.  p.  66). 


386  APPENDIX  TO  CHAFIER  X 

the  Books  of  Samuel.  Kautzsch  here  admits  old  and  valuable 
sources — a  "  Saul-Source,"  a  "  David-Source,"  a  "  Jerusalem- 
Source,"  dating  from  times  immediately  after  Solomon,  with, 
of  course,  later  and  less  reliable,  but  still  eighth  century, 
narratives,  and  "redactional  additions  of  various  kinds," 
some  of  them  post- exilian.1  Dr.  Driver  also  makes  the 
work  as  a  whole  "  pre-Deuteronomic." 2  A  considerably 
different  view  is  taken  by  Professor  H.  P.  Smith.  In  his 
Commentary  on  Samuel  this  critic  distinguishes  a  work 
which  he  calls  SI,  written  soon  after  the  death  of  Solomon, 
embracing  a  brief  life  of  Saul,  an  account  of  David  at  the 
court  of  Saul  and  as  outlaw,  and  a  history  of  David's  reign.3 
With  this  was  united  a  second — divergent  and  theocratic — 
account,  denoted  by  him  Sm,  which  contained  narratives  of 
the  early  life  and  doings  of  Samuel,  and  of  the  early  life, 
adventures,  and  part  of  the  reign  of  David.  This  he 
supposes  to  have  originated,  with  incorporation  of  older 
matter,  "perhaps  in  or  after  the  exile."4  In  details  also 
the  analysis  is  far  from  agreeing.  There  is  tolerable 
agreement  that  chaps,  ix.-x.  16,  xi.,  xiii.  2-xiv.  46  belong 
(mainly)  to  an  old  "Saul"  source,  which  represents  a 
different  type  of  narrative  from  that  in  chaps,  vii.  2-17, 
viii.,  x.  17-25,  xii.,  xv. ;  but  otherwise  there  are  important 
differences.  Dr.  Driver,  e.g.,  connects  chaps.  i.-iv.  la,  as  a 
"  somewhat  later "  introduction,  with  chaps,  iv.  1  J-vii.  1 ; 
and  divides  this  whole  section  from  chaps,  vii.  2-17  ("  of 
later  origin"),  viii.,  etc. — the  "theocratic"  story  (  =  Sm). 
But  H.  P.  Smith  puts  chaps.  i.-iiL  into  his  (exilian)  Sm 
story,  and  assigns  to  Sm  also,  from  older  sources,  the  other 
parts  up  to  chap,  vii.6  Dr.  Kautzsch  divides  still  more 
minutely,  and  in  2  Samuel  makes  a  separate  source  (his 
"Jerusalem-Source")  of  2  Sam.  vi.,  ix.-xx.,  which  H.  P. 
Smith,  again,  includes  in  his  SI.6  All,  however,  happily, 
make  this  long  narrative  quite  early.  The  chief  point  is 
that  H.  P.  Smith  carries  down  to  the  exile  a  long  narrative 
(Sm),  beginning  with  1  Sam.  i.-vi.,  which  the  others  take 
to  be  at  least  not  later  (apart  from  redactional  touchings) 
than  the  eighth  century.7  But  then  in  an  Appendix  Professor 

1  Lit.  of  O.T.,  pp.  236  ff.  ;  cf.  pp.  27  ff. 

2  Introd.  p.  177.  8  Samuel,  p.  408. 
4  Ibid.  p.  xx.                  B  Ibid.  p.  xix.                   8  Ibid.  p.  408. 

7  On  the  wide  differences  of  the  critical  schools  see  in  detail  Kohler, 
Bib.  Gesch.  ii.  p.  135. 


THE  LATER  HISTORICAL  BOOKS          387 

H.  P.  Smith  has  to  contend  against  a  new  writer,  Dr.  M. 
Lbhr  (1898),1  who  discards  Sm  for  fragments  inserted  into 
SI  at  different  dates.2 

All  this  is  bewildering  enough ;  but,  even  with  different 
sources,  the  attempt  to  break  up  the  unity  of  the  book,  and 
establish  for  the  different  narrators  opposite  and  irrecon- 
cilable points  of  view,  is  vastly  overdone.  The  "  theocratic  " 
view  is  presumed  to  be  a  later  gloss  upon  the  history,  and 
the  earlier  account,  which  is  said  to  represent  Samuel  as 
"the  seer  of  a  small  town,  respected  as  one  who  blesses 
the  sacrifices  and  presides  at  the  local  festival,  but  known 
only  as  a  clairvoyant,  whose  information  concerning  lost 
or  strayed  property  is  reliable,"  *  is  accepted  as  the  really 
historical  version.  Thus  Samuel  gets  effectively  stripped 
of  any  false  glory  a  pious  imagination  has  invested  him 
with  !  It  is,  however,  the  imagination  of  the  critic  chiefly 
that  is  astray.  Dr.  Driver,  who  is  not  extreme  here,  divides 
chaps.  L-vii.  1  from  what  follows  expressly  on  the  ground 
that  " hitherto  Samuel  has  appeared  only  as  a  prophet;  here 
(chap,  vii  ff.)  he  is  represented  as  a  'judge.' "  4  Yet  all  these 
chapters,  as  shown  above,  Professor  H.  P.  Smith  gives  to  his 
"theocratic"  narrator  (Sm)  —  the  same  who  represents 
Samuel  as  a  "judge."  The  charge  of  "partisanship,"  again, 
often  brought  against  the  "  Saul "  and  "  David "  sources 
(both  mostly  included  in  H.  P.  Smith's  SI)  is  fittingly  dealt 
with  by  Dr.  Kautzsch.  "  But  the  partisanship,"  he  says,  "  of 
the  one  source  for  Saul  and  of  the  other  for  David,  which 
used  to  be  so  frequently  assevted,  cannot  really  be  proved. 
.  .  .  After  all,  it  is  by  no  means  impossible  for  both  sources 
to  have  come  from  one  hand."  6 

The  Books  of  Samuel,  it  appears  to  us,  may  well  be  based 
on  such  nearly  contemporary  narratives  as  are  referred  to 
in  1  Chron.  xxix.  29,'  and  the  date  of  their  composition  need 

1  A  very  full  comparative  survey  of  modern  views  is  given  in  parallel 
columns  in  Luhr's  Samuel,  pp.  xiv-fxv. 

1  Ibid.  pp.  409  tf.  Li'hr  s  work,  though  advanced  in  criticism,  is  more 
conservative  than  most  in  respect  of  text  (cf.  pp.  vi,  xc). 

*  Ibid.  p.  xvi.     Kautzsch  puts  this  more  moderately  (p.  29). 
4  Introd.  p.  174. 

8  Lit.  of  0.  T.,  pp.  27-28.  Kautzsch,  however,  still  finds  the  source* 
"  freely  inlaid  with  passages  taken  from  a  quite  different  source  (S3.,  eighth 
century  =  part  of  Sm),  and  with  redactional  additions."  This  also,  we 
believe,  examination  would  show  to  be  precarious,  and  pushed  needlessly  far. 

•  See  above,  p.  381. 


388  APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  X 

not  be  carried  much  lower  than  where  Ewald  puts  it,  some 
twenty  or  thirty  years  after  the  death  of  Solomon.1 

3.  We  glance  finally,  briefly,  at  the  Books  of  Chronicles. 
These  are,  it  is  well  known,  the  veritable  b$te  noire  of  the 
critics.  The  Levitical  proclivities  and  representations  of 
this  writer — only,  however,  be  it  said,  in  certain  parts  of 
his  work,2  for  in  the  greater  portion  of  it  the  parallelism 
with  the  older  texts  is  close — are  a  constant  irritation  to 
them.  De  Wette  made  the  first  vigorous  onslaught  on  the 
credibility  of  Chronicles ; 3  Graf  returned  to  the  charge  with 
new  arguments ; 4  and  Wellhausen,  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  post-exilian  origin  of  the  law,  has  elaborated  the  attack 
with  unsparing  scorn  and  severity.5  Yet  unfairly — and 
unnecessarily.6  Let  all  be  granted  that  can  be  fairly 
alleged  of  the  Chronicler's  predominant  Levitical  interest, 
of  his  homiletical  expansions,  as,  e.g.,  in  the  speech  of 
Abijah  (2  Chron.  xiii.  4  ff.),7  of  his  dropping  the  veil  on 
the  sins  of  David  and  Solomon,8  of  his  occasional  exaggera- 

1  Of.  Bleek,  Introd.  i.  p.  400.     Bleek  himself  thinks  "probably  later,"  but 
still,  on  the  basis  of  older  records  (p.  405),  and  before  the  destruction  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  Ten  Tribes.     Kivkpa trick  says  "there  are  no  cogent  reasons 
for  referring  the  compilation  ol  the  Book  of  Samuel  to  a  late  date,"  and  finds 
the  primary  authorities  for  large  parts  of  the  history  in  Samuel  and  Kings 
in  ' '  the  narratives  of  contemporary  prophets  "  ( The  Divine  Library  of  0.  T. , 
pp.  14,  15  ;  cf.  his  Introd.  to  Samuel). 

2  The  most  notable  examples  are  the  account  of  David's  bringing  up  of 
the  ark,  and  his  subsequent  organisation  of  the  Levites  (1  Chron.  xv.  ff.  ; 
xxiiL-xxviii.)  ;  Solomon's  Dedication  of  the  temple  (2  Chron.  v.  4,  5,  11-14)  ; 
Abijah's  speech  (2  Chron.  xiii.) ;  the  proclamation  of  Joash  (2  Chron.  xxiii.) ; 
the  reformation  of  Hezekiah  (2  Chron.  xxix.-xxxi.)  ;  and  the  Passover  of 
Josiah  (2  Chron.  xxxv.) — nearly  all  temple  matters.     See  Van  Hoonacker 
below. 

8  In  his  Beitrage  (1806).  *  Geschiclit.  Siicher,  Pt.  ii. 

8  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  171  ff. 

6  How  far  the  last  word  is  from  having  been  spoken  on  the  credibility  of 
the  Chronicles  in  relation  to  Samuel  and  Kings  may  be  seen  from  the  lull 
and  able  discussions  (with  bearing  on  the  sections  noted  above)  in  Van 
Hoonacker's  Le  Sacerdoce  Ltvitique,  pp.  21  ff.     Cf.  also  Klosternmnn's  art. 
"  Chronik"  in  the  new  Realencyklop&die,  iv.  pp.  84  ff. 

7  Even  Keil  admits  an  element  of  free  reproduction  in  the  speeches 
(Chronicles,  pp.  40,  41),  whether  due  to  the  Chronicler  himself  or  found  in 
his  source. 

8  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  Chronicler  does  not  aim  at  giving  a 
complete  history,  but  only  excerpts  bearing  on  the  progress  of  the  theocracy, 
and  throughout  assumes  that  the  older  history  is  known  (cf.  Dillmann, 
"Chronik,"  Herzog's  Eealencyk.  iii.  p.  221).     There  is  nothing,  e.g.,  of  the 
early  life  of  David,  there  is  a  leap  from  the  death  of  Saul  to  David's  pro- 
clamation  as  king  of   all   Israel   at    Hebron,  the  Northern   Kingdom   is 
disregarded,  etc.     Wellhausen  allows  that  "the  Chronicler  indeed  knows 


THE  LATER  HISTORICAL  BOOKS          389 

tion  in  numbers— whether  his  own  or  a  copyist's1 — the 
gravamen  of  the  charge  against  him  still  lies  in  the  assump- 
tion, wholly  unfounded,  as  we  believe,  that  the  Levitical 
system  was  not  in  operation  before  the  exile.  If  it  was, 
there  is  no  a  priori  objection  to  the  representations  of  the 
Chronicler.  On  the  other  hand,  the  supposition  of  Well- 
hausen,  that  all  the  Chronicler's  elaborate  descriptions,  lists 
of  names,  details  of  arrangements,  are  pure  inventions  of 
his  fancy,  is  weighted  with  the  heaviest  improbabilities,  and 
cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  integrity  of  the  writer,  which 
some  are  still  anxious  to  uphold.  We  find  it  hard  to 
imagine,  for  instance,  how  anyone  can  read  the  long  and 
circumstantial  account  of  Hezekiah's  great  passover,2  or 
even  the  elaborate  descriptions  of  David's  sanctuary 
arrangements,8  and  not  feel  that  the  writer  is  reproduc- 
ing bona  fide — if  in  some  places  in  his  own  fashion — 
documentary  information  that  has  come  down  to  him.4 
The  critics,  on  the  other  hand,  will  allow  him  no  other 
sources  than  our  existing  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings — a 
view  which  not  only  his  own  references,  but  many 
phenomena  in  his  book  decidedly  contradict6  —  and  set 
down  all  else  to  sheer  wantonness  of  invention.  The 
evidence  points  in  a  quite  different  direction — to  the  use 
of  older  sources  dealing  with  these  matters  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  temple,6  in  which  case  his  narratives  afford 
a  valuable  positive  corroboration  of  the  results  already 
obtained. 

While,  therefore,  it  is  freely  admitted  that  Chronicles 
can  only  take  secondary  rank  as  a  historical  authority  in 
comparison  with  Samuel  and  Kings,  we  have  no  reason  to 

them  all  well  enough,  as  is  clear  from  inr-idental  expressions  in  chaps,  xi. 
und  xii."  (Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  172-78).  What  then  was  he  to  gain  from  his 
.silence  T  He  records  David's  theocratic  sin  of  numbering  the  people  (1  Chron. 
\xi.),  and  narrates  impartially  the  sins  of  Asa,  Joash,  Aniaziah,  etc.  (not 
in  Kings).  See  further  below. 

1  See  l>elow,  p.  390.  »  2  Chron.  xxx. 

*  1  Chron.  xxiii.  ff.     Cf.  on  this,  Klostermann,  Qeschichte  d.  Volkcs  Israel, 
\.  161. 

4  The  bona  fides  of  the  Chronicler  in  the  use  of  his  sources  is  upheld  by 
Dillmann,  Klostermann,  Van  Hoonacker,  etc.  See  below. 

*  It  is  questioned  by  hardly  any  that  he  knew  and  used  the  Books  of 
Samuel  and  Kings,  but  these  were  not  his  only  sources. 

8  Till  recently,  this  was  the  general  view.  Cf.  Bleek,  Keil,  S.  Davidson, 
Zockler,  Dillmann,  etc.  It  is  vigorously  upheld  by  Klostermann  (art. 
cited)  and  Van  Hoonacker,  Le  Sacerdoce,  pp.  70  ff.  tmd  passim. 


390  APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  X 

doubt  the  perfect  good  faith  of  its  author,1  the  value  of  much 
of  his  Levitical  information,  and,  in  general,  the  credibility 
of  his  book.  In  special  points  in  which  its  accuracy  has 
been  impugned — as  in  the  captivity  of  Manasseh  in  Babylon2 
— discovery  has  brought  to  it  valuable  corroboration.  Apart 
from  the  numbers,  which,  taken  literally,  are  indeed  in  some 
cases  "  incredibly  large,"  Zockler  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that 
"the  only  nearly  certain  example  of  error  on  his  part, 
arising,  apparently,  from  geographical  ignorance,  is  the 
explanation  of  the  Tarshish  ships  of  the  Ked  Sea  as  being 
designed  to  trade  to  Tarshish  "  (2  Chron.  ix.  21 ;  xx.  36).3 
Even  in  regard  to  the  numbers  he  says :  "  If  we  except  this 
one  passage,  all  else  of  an  erroneous  nature  in  the  text  is 
most  probably  to  be  reduced  to  errors  in  copying,  that 
either  existed  in  his  sources,  or  were  introduced  into  his 
text."  4  That  may  be  too  unqualified  also.5  Possibly,  as  Keil 
suggests,6  such  excessive  numbers  as  we  have  in  2  Chron 
xiii.  3,  17,  800,000  fighting  men  for  Israel,  400,000  for 
Judah,  500,000  of  Israel  slain,  are,  if  not  corrupt,  meant  to 
be  taken  only  as  round  numerical  expressions  for  the  whole 
or  half  of  the  respective  forces  (cf.  2  Sam.  xxiv.  9).  It  is  not 
to  be  overlooked,  moreover,  that  sometimes  it  is  Chronicles 
that  gives  the  smaller  number  (cf.,  e.g.,  I  Chron.  xi.  11,  with 
2  Sam.  xxiii.  8 ;  2  Chron.  ix.  25,  with  1  Kings  iv.  26),  and 
in  some  cases  the  numbers  are  undeniably  corrupt.7  On  the 

1  "It  is  now  recognised,"  wrote  Dillmann  (referring  to  the  attacks  of  De 
Wette  and  Graf)  "  that  the  Chronicler  has  worked  according  to  sources,  and 
that  there  can  be  no  talk  in  regard  to  him  of  intentional  fabrications  or 
misrepresentations  of  the  history"  ("Chronik,"  Herzog,  iii.  p.  223).  Cf. 
the  remarks  of  1'rof.  Robertson,  Poetry  and  Religion  of  the  Psalms,  pp.  92  ff. 
,  2  "The  account,"  says  Pr.  S.  Davidson,  "  awakens  grave  doubts  of  the 
fidelity  of  the  Chronist, "  and  he  concludes  that  the  narrative  is  ' '  unhistorical " 
(Introd.  ii.  pp.  97-100).  See  below,  p.  427.  Also  on  Shishak,  p.  426. 

8  Chronicles,  p.  25.  Most  admit  that  the  Chronicler  has  here  misunder- 
stood his  source  (cf.  1  Kings  x.  22  ;  xxii.  49) ;  at  least  it  is  highly  improb- 
able that  ships  made  voyages  round  Africa  from  the  Red  Sea  to  Tarshish 
(but  see  in  Zockler,  p.  28). 

4  Ibid. 

8  Dillmann,  however,  may  be  quoted  again  :  "  So  far  as  we  can  judge 
from  Chronicles  itself,  we  have  no  reason  to  suspect  the  trustworthiness  of 
the  sources  ;  a  mass  of  differences  between  Chronicles  and  the  Books  of 
Kings  in  names,  numbers,  expressions,  are  satisfactorily  explained  by 
accidental  corruptions  of  the  text,  be  it  in  Kings,  in  Chronicles,  or  in 
the  books  which  are  their  sources  "  (as  above,  p.  224). 

6  Chronicles,  pp.  350-55. 

7  A  curious  illustration  of  the  facility  of  error  is  afforded  by  the  fact  that, 
in  the  very  act  of  stating  the  large  number  of  Jeroboam's  army  in  2  Chron. 


THE  LATER  HISTORICAL  BOOKS          391 

whole  there  is  abundant  ground  for  the  moderate  and 
sensible  judgment  of  an  older  critic  like  Bleek:  "If  we 
only  possessed  this  work  alone  as  an  historical  source  for 
the  times  and  circumstances  treated  of  in  the  Chronicles, 
the  latter  would  in  no  way  afford  us  a  complete  and  exact 
picture  of  them  ;  but,  together  with  the  other  books,  it  gives 
us  very  valuable  and  important  additions  to  the  accounts  of 
the  latter,  and  a  crowd  of  important  details,  which  serve 
to  make  them  complete  both  in  general,  and  in  special 
points."1 

xiii.  8,  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  Bible,  i.  p.  113,  tlie  800,000  is  misprinted 
SOO.OuO. 

1  IiUrod.  i.  p.  442.  The  strong  words  of  Klostemiann  may  be  cited  in 
closing  this  discussion.  "Grant,'  he  says,  "that  the  image  conceived  by 
the  Chronist  and  his  predecessors,  e.g.,  of  the  development  of  the  cultns, 
totally  contradicts  that  which  the  modern  theology,  with  ignoring  of  their 
accounts,  has  sketched  on  the  basis  of  the  extraordinarily  sparse,  uncon- 
nected, and  ambiguous  casual  intimations  of  some  of  the  older  writings  and 
prophets,  and,  as  standing  outside  the  current  of  tradition,  with  the  aid 
of  inventive  fancy  ;  even  K>,  the  traditional  materials  from  which  the  picture 
uf  the  former  is  obtained,  are  not  mere  imaginations,  and  have  not  been 
designedly  distorted  or  changed  contrary  to  their  original  intention.  The 
attempts  made  of  late  to  figure  the  narrative  in  Chronicles,  e.g.,  about  the 
beginning  of  David's  reign,  in  details,  as  the  result  of  a  calculated  selection 
and  manipulation  of  passages  from  the  Book  of  Samuel — apart  from  the 
craft  and  stupidity  which  this  supposes,  especially  in  one  addressing  himself 
to  readers  of  the  Book  of  Samuel — leave  on  the  mind  the  impression,  not  of 
a  judge,  who  seeks  to  secure  that  an  accused  person  gets  his  righto,  but 
of  a  prosecuting  attorney,  who  sees  in  every  accidental  trifle,  a  new  proof  of 
an  already  presumed  great  crime." — "Cnronik,"  in  Hauck's  RtaUncyk. 
iv.  p.  97. 


CHAPTER  XI 

Hrcb*eolo02  an&  tbc  ®lfc  Testament 


"  Speak  to  the  earth,  and  it  shall  teach  thee."— JOB. 

"There  have  been  made  other  and  even  greater  discoveries  in  Assyrian 
and  Babylonian  ruins  since  Botta's  far-reaching  exploration  of  the  mounds  of 
Khorsabad,  but  there  never  has  been  aroused  again  such  a  deep  and  general 
interest  in  the  excavation  of  distant  Oriental  sites  as  towards  the  middle  of 
the  last  century,  when  Sargon's  palace  rose  suddenly  out  of  the  ground,  and 
furnished  the  first  faithful  picture  of  a  great  epoch  of  art  which  had  vanished 
completely  from  human  sight." — H.  V.  HILPKECHT. 

"The  more  I  investigate  Semitic  antiquity,  the  more  I  am  impressed 
with  the  utter  baselessness  of  the  view  of  Wellhauseu." — FR.  HOMMKL. 

"  The  result  is  sufficiently  surprising ;  Meyer  himself  does  not  conceal 
the  fact.  The  documents  preserved  in  the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
are  (substantially)  genuine  official  documents,  and  the  chronology  of  the 
Chronicles  is  correct  in  every  particular." — Prof.  A.  R.  S.  KENNEDY,  on 
Ed.  Meyer. 

"The  systematic  historical  description,  the  account  of  the  wanderings 
•which  is  as  exact  geographically  as  it  is  historically,  and  in  which  we  find  a 
number  of  small  details  that  would  have  been  valueless  and  unknown  to 
later  writers,  and  above  all  else  the  accurate  dating  by  the  sacred  lunar 
periods  of  an  early  age,  appear  to  demand  as  their  original  basis  the  existence 
of  written  documents  contemporaneous  with  Moses  himself." — Dr.  DITLKF 
NIELSON  (Danish  archaeologist). 


CHAPTER  XI 
ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

IN  the  Wellhausen  school,  as  we  have  seen,  literary  criticism 
of  the  Old  Testament  came  under  the  control  of  the  history 
of  religion  and  institutions;  contemporaneously,  however, 
with  the  development  of  this  school,  a  new  claimant  to  be 
heard  has  put  in  its  voice  in  the  science  of  archaeology, 
which  bids  fair,  before  long,  to  control  both  criticism  and 
history.  It  is  its  witness  we  are  now  to  hear. 

I.  GENERAL  BEARINGS  OF  MODERN  ARCHAEOLOGICAL 
DISCOVERY 

Nothing  in  the  whole  course  of  last  century  is  more 
remarkable  than  the  recovery  of  the  knowledge  of  ancient 
civilisations  through  the  labours  of  explorers  and  the 
successful  decipherment  of  old  inscriptions.  The  early  part 
of  the  century  witnessed  the  recovery  of  the  key  to  the 
ancient  Egyptian  hieroglyphics,  and  the  middle  and  close  of 
the  century  saw  the  triumph  of  skill  in  penetrating  the 
secret  of  that  equally  strange  and  difficult  system  of  writing 
— the  cuneiform.1  When  in  the  palace  of  Assurbanipal  at 
Nineveh,  brought  to  light  by  Sir  Henry  Layard,8  syllabaries 
and  other  aids  to  the  knowledge  of  the  language  were 
obtained,  rapid  progress  in  the  decipherment  was  assured. 
Scholars  axe  now  struggling  with  imperfect  means  to 
wrest  their  meaning  from  the  puzzling  characters  on  the 
Hittite  monuments.  Excavations  in  Crete  are  yield- 
ing new  surprises,  and  carrying  knowledge  back  to  a 

1  For  *  full  and  readable  account  of  these  decipherments  nee  Vigouroux's 
La  Bible  et  let  Dfcmirerits  Mcdernei,  i.  pp.  115-69  ;  of.  Sayoe,  Fretk 
Light  from  Ancient  Monument*,  chap.  i.  ;  Hilprecht'i  Efi>loratioru,  pp. 
23  ff.,  629  ff.  etc. 

*  See  below,  p.  399. 


396    ARCHAEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

civilisation  in  its  bloom  in  the  second  millennium  before 
Christ.1 

Such  discovery  might  conceivably  have  taken  place,  and 
abundant  light  have  been  thrown  on  the  arts,  language, 
institutions,  and  religions  of  such  lost  civilisations  as  those  of 
Babylonia,  Assyria,  and  Egypt,  and  yet  little  direct  illumina- 
•  tion  have  been  shed  on  the  Bible.  It  must  be  accounted  a 
wonderful  providence  of  God  that,  at  a  time  when  so  much 
is  being  said  and  done  to  discredit  the  Old  Testament,  so 
marvellous  a  series  of  discoveries,  bearing  directly  on 
matters  contained  in  its  pages,  should  have  been  made. 
Few,  indeed,  who  have  not  given  the  matter  special  study, 
have  any  idea  of  how  extensive  are  the  points  of  contact 
between  these  explorations  and  the  Bible,  and  how  manifold 
are  the  corroborations  of  Scripture  which  they  afford.  In 
this  as  in  every  new  study,  of  course,  there  has  been  much 
to  unlearn  as  well  as  to  learn.  Many  rash  theories  and 
baseless  conjectures  have  been  propounded,  and  not  a  few 
supports  sought  for  the  Bible  have  proved  to  be  illusory. 
But  the  area  of  positive  knowledge  has  always  been  widen- 
ing, and  there  is  to-day  a  mass  of  material  available  for  the 
illustration  and  confirmation  of  Holy  Scripture  for  which  we 
cannot  be  sufficiently  grateful. 

Attempts  are  made,  indeed,  to  minimise  this  signal  con- 
tribution of  archaeology  to  faith,  and  to  turn  its  material 
to  uses  hostile,  rather  than  helpful,  to  revealed  religion. 
Already  a  great  change  can  be  perceived  in  the  attitude 
and  tactics  of  rationalistic  critics  in  relation  to  these 
discoveries.  Formerly  Israel  was  looked  upon  as  a  people 
belonging  to  the  dim  dawn  of  history,  at  a  period  when, 
except  in  Egypt,  civilisation  had  hardly  begun.  It  was 
possible  then  to  argue  that  the  art  of  writing  did  not  exist 
among  the  Hebrews,  and  that  they  had  not  the  capacity  for 
the  exalted  religious  ideas  which  the  narratives  of  their  early 
history  imply.  Moses  could  not  have  given  the  laws,  nor 
David  have  written  the  psalms,  which  the  history  ascribes 
to  them.  This  contention  is  now  rendered  impossible  by 
the  discovery  of  the  extraordinary  light  of  civilisation  which 
shone  in  the  Tigro-Euphrates  valley,  and  in  the  valley  of 
the  Nile,  millenniums  before  Abraham  left  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees,  or  Moses  led  his  people  out  of  Egypt.  The 

1  See  The  Quarterly  Review,  Oct.  1904,  pp.  374  ff. 


ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    397 

transformation  of  opinion  is  revolutionary.1  The  entire , 
perspective  is  altered,  and  it  is  felt  that  Israel  is  now  rather 
to  be  regarded  as  a  people  on  whom  the  ends  of  the  earth 
bad  come  in  respect  of  civilisation.  The  world  was  already 
old  in  the  times  of  Jacob  and  Moses,  and  the  tendency  is 
now  to  see  in  the  religious  ideas  and  institutions  of  Israel  an 
inheritance  from  Babylonia,  and  to  bring  in  Babylonian 
influences  at  the  beginning  of  Israel's  history,  rather  than 
at  its  close.  The  gain  is  appreciable  in  the  breaking  up  of 
older  critical  theories,  but  the  attempt  to  ignore  the  dis- 
tinctive features  of  the  Biblical  religion,  and  to  resolve  the 
latter  into  a  simple  compound  of  the  ideas  of  other  religions,2 
is  bound  to  fail,  and  is  being  met  with  an  effective  protest 
from  critical  scholars  themselves.8 

Unquestionably  the  most  remarkable  result  that  has 
accrued  from  the  discoveries  in  Egypt,  Babylonia,  and 
Assyria,  has  been,  as  just  said,  the  astonishing  revolution 
wrought  in  our  views  of  the  character  and  literary  capabilities 
of  the  most  ancient  civilisations.  It  had  long  been  known 
that  Egypt  was  a  literary  country  as  early  as,  and  far  earlier 
than,  the  time  of  Moses.  Now  that  the  books  and  monu- 
ments of  that  ancient  people  have  been  disinterred,  and  the 
writing  on  them  made  intelligible,  our  wonder  is  tenfold 
increased  at  the  brilliance  of  their  civilisation  as  far  back  as 
the  days  of  their  earliest  kings.4  Still  more  astonishing  is 

1  The  effect  has  been  most  marked  on  archaeologists  themselves.  Sayce, 
Hommel,  Halevy,  all  formerly  advocates  of  the  critical  view,  have  abandoned 
it.  Dr.  Driver  having  stated  that  Hommel  agreed  with  Wellhausen's 
analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  (Expos.  Times,  Dec.  1896),  Hommel  replied  (to 
the  late  Professor  Green)  that  the  citation  was  from  an  earlier  publication, 
and  that  he  no  longer  held  these  views,  but  was  increasingly  impressed  with 
"  the  utter  baselessness  "  of  the  view  of  Wellhansen.  It  has  been  the  same 
with  Professor  Sayce.  Hale'vy,  at  a  meeting  of  the  International  Congress  at 
Paris  in  1897,  made  a  strong  defence  of  the  essential  truth  of  the  Mosaic 
history,  as  against  the  Wellhausen  school,  with  which  he  had  been  identified. 

s  Thus  Fried.  Delitzsch,  Babel  und  Bibel ;  Winckler,  etc. 

*  Cf.  Budde,  Das  Alte  Testament  und  Die  Ausgrabungen  (against 
Winckler);  Gunkel,  Israel  und  Babylonicn  (against  Fried.  Delitzsch)  ;  and 
the  abundant  literature  called  forth  in  the  "  Babel  and  Bible"  controversy 
(see  below,  p.  409). 

4  See  below,  p.  418.  The  oldest  known  MS.  in  existence  (dating  from 
twelfth  dynasty)  is  that  of  the  "  Precepts  of  Ptah-hotep,"  a  classical 
Egyptian  work  of  the  fifth  dynasty  (c.  3000  B.C.).  Ptah-hoten  lived  under 
King  Assa,  was  himself  of  royal  descent  (Brugsch  thinks  "the  son  of  tho 
king '),  and  was  very  old  when  he  wrote,  bnt  he  appeals  to  the  ancients. 
Brugsch,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  i.  pp.  92  ff.  ;  Renouf,  Religion  nf  Egypt,  pp.  75, 
100,  etc. 


398    ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  light  cast  by  the  monuments  on  the  condition  of  ancient 
Babylonia.  Here,  in  the  Hammurabi  age — which  is  that  of 
Abraham — and  long  before,  we  find  ourselves  in  the  midst 
of  cities,  books,  and  libraries ;  of  letters,  arts,  and  laws,  in  a 
high  state  of  development;  of  a  people  among  whom  not 
only  a  knowledge  of  letters  existed,  but  a  taste  for  books 
and  reading  was  widely  diffused1 — in  short  of  a  highly 
advanced  and  capable  literary  people.  Babylonia  had  by 
this  time  its  dynasties  of  great  kings,  some  of  whom  were 
distinguished  as  founders  of  libraries  and  patrons  of  letters. 
Sargon  I.,  e.g.,  whose  date  is  usually  put  at  3800  B.C.,  founded 
a  famous  Horary  at  Accad.  The  French  excavator  De 
Sarzec  brought  to  light  a  few  years  since  (1893-5)  the 
remains  of  a  great  library  (30,000  tablets)  at  Tello,  in  S. 
Babylonia,  which  already  existed  in  the  reign  of  Gudea, 
about  2700  B.C.2  More  recently  the  Pennsylvania  explorers 
have  disinterred  the  temple  library  at  Nippur,  the  ancient 
Calneh.  Not  only  so,  but  in  excavating  the  foundations  of 
the  temple,  they  came  on  the  abundant  remains  of  an  older 
civilisation,  which,  from  the  depth  at  which  the  relics  were 
found — 25  to  35  feet  below  the  pavement  of  Sargon  I.  and 
Naram-Sin — must,  it  is  thought,  be  as  old  as  6000  or  7000 
years  B.C.8  Even  if  less  time  should  suffice,  their  antiquity 
is  still  immensely  remote. 

It  is  beyond  our  province  to  enter  minutely  into  what 
may  be  called  the  romance  of  the  rediscovery  of  ancient 
Nineveh  and  Babylon ;  but  one  illustration  may  bring  out 
how  from  the  first  light  has  been  shed  on  the  Bible  by 
exploration.  In  1843,  Emil  Botta,  French  Consul  in  the 
district,  struck  into  the  mounds  of  Khorsabad,  a  little  to  the 
north  of  Nineveh,  and  soon,  to  his  own  surprise,  was  standing 
in  the  midst  of  an  immense  palace,  which  proved  to  be  that 
of  Sargon,  the  conqueror  of  Samaria.  This  was  a  remarkable 
discovery.  In  Isa.  xx.  1,  we  read  that  "Sargon,  king  of 

1  It  has  been  argued  that  reading  and  writing  were  probably  confined  to 
the  upper  and  official  classes.     The  extent  and  variety  of  the  literature, 
the  fact  of  published  laws,  and   the  use  of  writing  in  business  (banking 
accounts,  etc.),  above  all,  the  lesson  and  exercise  books  of  young  pupils, 
point  to  a  different  conclusion  ;  cf.  Hilpreoht,  Explorations,  p.  405  :  "found 
them  to  be  the  school  exercises  of  a  Babylonian  child  living  in  the  fifth  pre- 
Christian  millennium  "  (at  Nippur)  ;  pp.  525  ff. 

2  Some    of   these  tablets  are    older    than    4000   B.C.  ;  cf.    Hilprecht, 
Explorations,  p.  249. 

•  Cf.  Hilprecht,  pp.  391  ff.,  542  ff.  ;  Peters,  Nippur,  ii.  pp.  246  ff. 


ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    399 

Assyria,  sent  his  Tartan  (or  cominander-in-chief)  to  besiege 
Ashdod."  But  who  was  Sargon  ?  This  is  the  only  place  in 
which  his  name  occurs  in  Scripture,  or  in  all  literature. 
Ancient  writers  knew  nothing  of  him.  He  was  a  mystery  : 
some  did  not  hesitate  to  deny  that  he  ever  existed.  Yet 
the  first  important  discovery  made  was  the  palace  of  this 
very  Sargon.1  It  contained  his  name  and  portrait ;  its  walls 
were  covered  with  his  sculptures  and  inscriptions.  Sargon, 
after  being  forgotten  for  twenty-five  centuries,  is  now  again 
one  of  the  best  known  kings  of  Assyria.  He  was  the 
father  of  Sennacherib.  His  annals  recount  the  siege  of 
A.-lnlod  mentioned  in  Isaiah.  This  first  discovery  was 
followed  by  others  not  less  brilliant.  In  1847  Mr.  Layard 
began  work  at  the  mounds  of  Niniroud  and  Kouyunjik — the 
site  of  Nineveh  itself.  At  the  former  place  he  unearthed 
four  large  palaces,  and  at  the  latter,  the  palace  of  Sennacherib, 
rebuilt  by  his  grandson  Assurbanipal,  in  the  ddbris  of  which 
were  found  the  remains  of  the  richly-stored  library  already 
referred  to.2 

IL  BABYLONIAN  LEGENDS  AND  THE  EARLY  CHAPTERS 
OF  GENESIS 

Beginning  with  the  origins,  a  first  question  we  naturally 
ask  is — Do  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis  really  preserve  for  us- 
the  oldest  traditions  of  our  race  ?  There  are  two  reasons 
entitling  us  to  look  with  some  confidence  for  an  answer  to 
this  question  to  Babylonia.  The  first  is,  that  in  Babylonia 
we  are  already  far  back  into  the  times  to  which  these 
traditions  relate;  and  the  second  is,  that  these  traditions 
themselves  point  to  Babylonia  ns  their  seat  and  centre. 
Eden  was  in  Babylonia,  as  shown  by  its  rivers  Euphrates 
and  Tigris;  the  land  of  Nod,  to  which  Cain  and  his 
posterity  betook  themselves,  was  to  the  east  of  Babylonia  ;8- 
the  ark  was  built  in  Babylonia,  and  it  was  on  one  of  the 
mountains  N.  or  N.E.  of  Babylonia  that  it  ultimately 
rested ;  from  the  plain  of  Shinar  (Sumir^  in  Babylonia  was 
the  earth  repeopled.  If,  therefore,  the  oldest  traditions  of 

1  Cf.    George    Smith,     Assyrian     Discoveries,    pp.    2   ff.  ;     Hilprecht, 
Explorations,  pi».  76,  84  ff. 

*  Assyrian  Discoveries,  pp.  4,  101,  144  ff.,  418,    452  ;  Hilprecht,   pp. 
104  ff. 

•  Gen.  iv.  18. 


400    ARCHAEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  race  lingered  anywhere,  it  should  be  in  Babylonia. 
And  now  that  we  have  in  our  hands  the  records  of  that 
ancient  people,  dating  back  to  very  early  times,  it  is 
possible  to  compare  the  Bible  traditions  with  them,  and  see 
how  far  they  correspond.  It  may  be  claimed  that  the 
tablets  and  inscriptions  which  have  been  deciphered  do  show 
that  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  are  indeed  what  we  have 
assumed  them  to  be — a  record  of  the  very  oldest  traditions 
of  our  race.  We  shall  look  first  at  the  facts,  then  at  the 
explanation. 

"  1.  Though  out  of  chronological  order,  we  may  begin 
with  a  statement  in  that  old  and  much-discussed  chapter  in 
Genesis — the  account  in  chap.  x.  of  the  divisions  of  men  after 
the  flood.  This  "  table  of  nations,"  as  it  is  called,  we  look 
on  as  one  of  the  oldest  and  most  precious  documents  of 
its  kind  in  existence.1  In  vers.  8-12  of  this  chapter  we 
read  :  "  Gush  begat  Nimrod  :  he  began  to  be  a  mighty  one 
in  the  earth.  .  .  .  And  the  beginning  of  his  kingdom 
was  Babel,  and  Erech,  and  Accad,  and  Calneh,  in  the  land  of 
Shinar.  Out  of  that  land  he  went  forth  into  Assyria  [or, 
went  forth  Asshur]  and  builded  Nineveh,  and  Rehoboth-Ir, 
and  Calah,  and  Resen  between  Nineveh  and  Calah :  the 
same  is  the  great  city."  The  very  names  of  these  cities  take 
us  back  into  the  midst  of  the  ancient  Babylonia  unearthed 
by  exploration.  But  more  particularly,  the  passage  makes 
three  statements  of  the  first  importance.  It  affirms  (1)  that 
Babel  and  the  other  cities  named  existed  before  Nineveh ; 
(2)  that  Assyria  was  colonised  from  Babylonia  ;  and  (3)  that 
the  founder  of  Babylonian  civilisation  was  not  a  Semite, 
but  a  Cushite — a  descendant  of  Ham.2  Each  of  these 
statements,  till  the  time  of  the  Assyrian  discoveries,  was 
confidently  disputed.  The  received  tradition  put  Nineveh 
before  Babylon,3  and  the  Babylonians,  like  the  Assyrians, 
were  held  to  be  Semites.  The  monuments,  however, 
confirm  the  Bible  in  all  three  points.*  It  is  no  longer 

1  Kautzsch   says:    "The  so-called  table  of  nations  remains  according 
to    all    results    of   monumental    exploration,    an    ethnographic    original 
document  of  the  first  rank,  which  nothing  can   replace." — Die  Bleibende 
Bedeutung  des  Alttestams.iite,  p.  17.     On  critical  questions,  see  above,  p.  351. 

2  Cf.  G.  Rawlinson,  Hist.  Illustrations  of  the  O.T.,  pp.  29  ff. 

3  The  authority  for  this  was  the  fable  of  Semiramis  in  Ctesias,  reported 
by  Diodorus  Siculus  (ii.  1-20). 

4  Cf.  Schrader,  Cun.  Imcripts.  i.  p.  76,  on  Gen.  x.  10:  "This  coincides 


ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    401 

questioned  that  the  Babylonian  kingdoms  were  the  older  'r 
— the  antiquity  ascribed  to  some  of  their  cities  (e.g.,  to 
Nippur  =  Calneh)  is  almost  fabulous.  It  is  no  longer 
doubted  that  Assyrian  civilisation  was  derived  from 
Babylonia.*  Strangest  of  all,  it  is  now  known  (for  though 
there  are  rival  theories,  we  state  correctly  the  prevailing 
view),8  that  the  founders  of  the  Babylonian  civilisation,  the 
inventors  of  its  alphabet,  laws,  arts,  the  founders  of  its 
libraries,  were  not  Semites,  but  people  of  a  different 
stock — Turanian  or  Hamitic  (the  Accadians).4 

Another  instance  may  be  given  from  this  chapter.  In 
ver.  22  Elam  is  mentioned  as  the  oldest  son  of  Shem.  But 
the  Elam  of  history  was  not  Semitic,  but  Aryan.  On  the 
ground  of  its  langunge  even  Hommel  wrote  recently  :  "  The 
Elam  mentioned  here  as  one  of  the  sons  of  Shem  cannot 

with  all  that  we  otherwise  kuow   respecting  tho  relation   of  Assyria  to 
Babylonia,"  etc. 

'The  first  Babylonian  dynasty,  that  to  which  Hammurabi  belonged, 
began  about  2200  B.C.  (some  date  it  a  century  or  two  earlier),  but  the  city 
of  Babel  is  of  unknown  antiquity.  A  recent  writer  says :  "  The  oldest 
history  of  Babylon  is  still  unknown.  ...  It  is  certain  that  Sargoii 
(3800  B.C.)  raised  Babylon  to  a  leading  position.  From  this  time  Babylon 
forms  with  Borsippa  a  double  city."  —  Jeremias,  Das  A.T.  im  Lichte  des 
alien.  Orients,  p.  160.  The  antiquity  of  Ereoli,  Accad,  Calneh,  is  very 
great.  Inscriptions  of  kings  of  Erech,  Lagash,  and  other  places,  were 
found  at  Nippur  of  a  date  aa  early  as  4000  B.C.  (Peters,  Nippur,  ii. 
p.  160). 

1  The  Assyrian  Nineveh  (for  there  seems  to  have  been  a  Babylonian  city 
of  the  same  name)  is  likewise  old.  An  inscription  of  Dungi,  the  second 
king  of  Ur  (c.  2700  B.C.),  has  been  found  in  it  (Jeremias,  p.  165).  Cf. 
McCurdy,  History,  Prophecy,  and  the  Monuments,  i.  p.  63  :  "  Before  the 
union  [of  Babylonian  kingdoms]  was  effected,  emigrants  from  among  those 
Babylonians  settled  along  the  Middle  Tigris,  founded  the  city  of  Asahur, 
and  latt-r  still  the  group  of  cities  known  to  history  as  Nineveh.  ' 

1  See  for  counter  view,  art.  "  Accad,"  in  Diet,  of  Bible,  i.  p.  21,  with 
qualifying  editorial  note. 

4  Guukel  says  :  "  But  the  centre  of  the  Orient  is  Babylonia  :  there  from 
an  unthought-of  antiquity  lias  flourished  an  amazingly  high  culture,  which 
already  about  3000  B.C.  stands  in  full  bloom  :  this  culture  oiiginates  from  a 
non-Semitic  people,  whom  we  name  Snmerian,  and  is  then  taken  over  and 
carried  forward  by  Semitic  emigrants."  —  Israel  un<l  Baliylonien,  p.  6. 
(Continental  scholars  generally  speak  of  "Sumerian,"  English  writers  of 
"  Aocadian.") 

Pinches  says :  "  During  the  period  immediately  preceding  that  of  the 
dynasty  of  Babylon  there  is  a  gap  in  the  list  of  kings,  which  fresh  excava- 
tions alone  can  fill  up.  Before  this  gap,  the  recoids,  so  far  as  we  know 
them,  are  in  the  Akkadian  language.  After  this  gap  they  are  in  tho 
Semitic-Babylonian  tongue."—  O.T.  in  Lt'g'it  of  Hirt.  Rfeords,  etc.,  p.  152. 
See  now,  however,  Jertiuias  on  the  discoveries  at  Lagash  aud  Nippur 
(l>.  2). 

26 


402    ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

possibly  be  identical  with  Elam  proper."1  The  work  of 
exploration  of  the  French  expedition  at  Susa,  the  capital  of 
Elam,  has,  however,  resulted  in  the  remarkable  discovery  of  a 
civilisation  older  than  any  yet  known  in  this  region.  More 
striking  still,  it  is  found  that  the  inscriptions  on  the  oldest 
bricks  are  written  in  cuneiform  characters,  and  not  in  the 
language  of  later  Elam,  but  either  in  Semitic  Babylonian,  or 
in  Accadian.  Thus  Elam  is  proved  to  be,  after  all,  "  the  son 
of  Shem."2 

A  still  wider  result  from  these  explorations,  in  their 
bearings  on  our  subject,  is  the  growing  conviction  that  "  the 
plain  of  Shinar"  (chap,  xi.),  or  Southern  Babylonia,  was 
really  the  centre  of  distribution  of  the  families  of  mankind. 
x  Babylonian  civilisation  is  carried  back  by  the  discoveries  at 
Nippur  to  a  period  so  much  earlier  than  that  of  any  other 
known  civilisation,  that  the  inference  seems  irresistible  that 
it  is  the  source  from  which  these  other  civilisations  are 
derived.  It  has  been  seen  that  this  is  true  of  Assyria.  It 
is  beginning  to  be  assumed  by  leading  Egyptologists  that 
the  same  is  true  of  Egypt.3  Learned  books  have  been 
written  to  show  that  it  is  true  of  China.4  Probably  it  will 
be  found  to  be  true  of  Crete,  etc.  The  Biblical  account  of 
these  matters,  in  short,  is  found  to  rest  on  far  older  and 
more  accurate  information  than  that  possessed  by  any 
scholars  prior  to  the  new  discoveries. 

N  2.  The  stories  of  the  Creation  and  the  Flood  in  Genesis 
have  been  so  often  compared  with  the  corresponding 
Babylonian  legends  that  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  bestow  much 
space  upon  them.  Among  the  tablets  found  in  Assurbanipal's 
palace  were  some  which  proved  on  examination  to  contain 

1  Ancient  ffeb.  Tradition,  p.  294. 

2  Dr.  Driver  says  in  his  Genesis,  in  loc.  :  "  It  is  true  inscriptions  recently 
discovered  seem  to  have  sliown  that  in  very  early  times  Elam  was  peopled 
by  Semites  .  .  .  but  the  fact  is  not  one  which  the  writer  of  this  ver?e  is 
likely  to  have  known  "  (p.  128).     The  curious  fact  is,  however,  that  he  did 
know  it,  while  modern  scholars  did  not.     Is  it  not  more  likely  that  Dr. 
Driver's  theory  of  the  writer's  age,  and  of  the  extent  of  his  knowledge,  is 
wrong  * 

For  further  illustration,  see  Note  A  on  Ethnological  Relations  in  Gen.  x. 

3  Cf.  art.  "  Egypt,"  in  Diet,  of  Bible  i.  p.  656  ;  Budge,  Hist,  of  Egy/>t, 
i.  pp.  39-43  ;  Sayce,  Early  Israel,  p.  155  ;  Nicol,  Recent  Archaeology  and  the 
Bible,  pp.  92,  319  ;  art.  in  New  York  Independent  (1897)  on  discoveries  and 
views  of  De  Sarzec,  Mauss,  etc. 

4  See  an  interesting  article  in  Quarterly  Review,  July,  1882  ;  Boscawen, 
Chambers' s  Journal,  July  1896  ;  C.  J.  Ball,  in  Pinches,  p.  121. 


ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    403 

aii  account  of  creation,  resembling  in  certain  of  its  features 
the  narrative  in  Gen.  i.  The  contrasts,  indeed,  are  much 
more  apparent  than  the  likeness.1  The  Babylonian  story  is 
debased  throughout  by  polytheism  —  begins,  in  fact,  by 
recounting  the  birth  of  the  great  gods  from  the  chaotic 
ocean.  This  is  followed  by  a  long  mythological  description, 
abounding  in  repetition,  of  the  war  of  Merodach  (god  of 
light)  with  Tiam.it  (the  primeval  ocean),  the  conflict  issuing 
in  the  woman  being  cut  in  two,  and  heaven  being  formed 
of  one  half,  and  earth  of  the  other.  The  order  of  the 
creative  works,  however,  seems  to  bear  some  resemblance  to 
that  in  Gen.  i.  The  fifth  tablet  narrates  the  appointing  of 
the  constellations,  and  another  fragment  the  making  of  the 
animals.  A  trace  of  an  older  conception  may,  perhaps,  be 
discerned  in  the  fact  that  in  the  latter  (if  it  really  belongs 
to  the  same  series,  which  is  doubtful)  the  work  of  creation 
is  ascribed,  not  to  Merodach,  but  to  "  all  the  gods  "  together, 
thus: 

"  When  all  the  gods  had  made  (the  world), 
Had  created  the  heavens,  had  formed  (the  earth), 
Had  brought  forth  living  creatures  into  being, 
The  cattle  of  the  field,  the  (beasts)  of  the  field,  and 
The  creeping  things  (of  the  field)."1 

Inscriptions  show  that  both  Babylonians  and  Assyrians 
had  a  species  of  seventh-day  sabbath.  The  word  sabattu 
itself  occurs,  and  is  defined  as  "  a  day  of  rest  for  the  heart."3 
It  differed,  however,  from  the  Jewish  sabbath,  in  that  the 
reckoning  began  afresh  each  month — 7th,  14th,  21st,  28th, — 
while  the  Jewish  went  on  consecutively.  On  it  ordinary 
works  were  prohibited,  at  least  to  king  and  high  officials.* 

1  These  are  acknowledged  by  nearly  every  writer.  Gunkcl  says :  "  Any- 
one who  compares  this  ancient  Babylonian  myth  with  Gen.  i.  will  perceive 
at  first  hardly  anything  else  than  the  infinite  distance  between  them  ;  there, 
the  heathen  gods,  inflamed  against  each  other  in  wild  warfare,  here  the  One, 
who  speaks  and  it  is  done." — Israel  und  Babylonien,  p.  24  ;  cf.  Genesis,  pp. 
118,  118;  Oettli,  Der  fCampf  urn  Bibel  und  Label,  pp.  9  ff.  There  is 
another  ancient  Habylonian  legend  of  creation  which  has  greater  affinity  to 
the  Jehovistic  account  in  Genesis  (chap.  ii.).  Cf.  Pinches,  as  above,  pp. 
39  ff.  etc. 

'  King,  Bab.  Religion,  p.  81. 

3  It  st-enis  forced,  despite  parallels,  to  explain  this  as  a  day  when  the  gods 
rested  from  anger,  i.e.,  a  day  of  propitiation  (Justrow,  Driver,  etc.). 

4  Difficulties  arise  from  the  lact  that  the  word  sabattu  is  not  expressly 
applied  to  the  seventh  days,  ami  that  the  prohibitions  of  work  mention 
only  king,   augur,   physician.      There   seems  little  doubt,  however,   that 


404    ARCHAEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

Abundant  material  exists  for  the  illustration  of  the 
narrative  of  Paradise.  On  the  other  hand,  no  clear  account 
of  the  fall  of  man  has  yet  been  recovered.  But  that  the 
Babylonians  had  some  story  resembling  that  in  Gen.  iii.  is 
rendered  probable  by  the  representation  on  an  ancient  seal 
in  which  a  man  and  a  woman  are  depicted  as  seated  on 
either  side  of  a  tree,  and  reaching  out  their  hands  to  pluck 
the  fruit,  while  behind  the  woman  a  serpent  rears  itself,  and 
appears  to  whisper  in  her  ear.  Scholars  are  divided  in 
opinion  as  to  the  identification;1  but  to  most  people  the 
picture  will  seem  to  speak  for  itself. 

No  doubt,  at  least,  can  rest  on  the  parallelism  between 
the  Biblical  and  the  Babylonian  stories  of  the  Deluge.  The 
Babylonian  story,  inserted  as  an  episode  in  a  longer  epic 
poem,  must  be  older  than  the  latter ;  we  may  safely  place  it 
as  early  as  3000  B.C.  Though  defaced,  like  the  creation 
story,  by  a  gross  polytheism,2  it  presents  in  its  general 
structure,  and  in  many  of  its  details,  a  striking  resemblance 
to  the  account  in  Genesis.  It  relates,  in  brief,  how  the 
Babylonian  Noah8  was  commanded  to  build  a  ship  for 

the  above-mentioned  days,  with  some  others,  fall  under  the  category  of 
"  sabbaths,"  and  possibly  the  prohibition  of  work  is  intended  to  be  general 
Of.  Gunkel,  Genesis,  pp.  106  ff.  ;  Israel  mid  Bab.  pp.  27,  28  ;  Jeremias,  as 
above,  pp.  86  H'.  ;  Driver,  Genesis,  p.  34,  and  art.  "Sabbath"  in  Diet,  of 
Bible,  iv.  p.  319 ;  Schrader,  Sayce,  etc.  Gunkel  says :  "  Name  and 
institution  of  the  sabbath  are  quite  surely  of  Babylonian  origin"  (p.  108). 
The  narrative  in  Exodus  assumes  the  sabbath  to  be  already  known  to  the 
Israelites  (Ex.  xvi.  22-30) ;  and  in  Gen.  ii.  3  ;  Ex.  xx.  11,  its  appointment 
is  traced  back  to  the  creation.  [See  Note  at  end  of  Chapter.] 

1  The  male  figure  is  horned,  which  some  take  to  be  a  sign  of  divinity  ; 
but  this  is  questioned.     Cf.  Pinches,  as  above,  p.  79.      Schrader,  Budde, 
Kittel,  Gunkel,  Jeremias,  Driver,  etc.,  declare  the  interpretation  doubtful. 
G.  Smith,  Sayce,  F.  Delitzsch,  and  many  others,  uphold  it. 

2  The  contrast  is  again  emphasised   by  Gunkel,  as  by  other  writers. 
Gunkel  says:    "The  polytheism  which  obtrudes  itself  in  the  Babylonian 
tradition   in  the  strongest  way  has  in  the  Israelitish  %vholly  disappeared. 
'The  gods  of  the  Babylonian  story  are  genuinely  heathenish  in  their  lying 
and  sanction  of  lying,  in  their  greed  at  the  sacrifice,  in  their  actions,  in  their 
caprice,  in  their  dealings  with  men,  and  in  the  alternation  of  their  humours. 
How  far  removed  from  this  is  the  God  who  permits  a  judgment  to  come  on 
men  in  His  righteousness,  who  must  justify  Himself  to  man's  conscience  ! ' 
(Holzinger).     The  last  point  is  specially  very  important ;  of  the  profound 
knowledge  of  sin  with  which  the  Hebrew  bows  before  God  there  is  not  a 
trace  in  the  Babylonian  story." — Genesis,  p.  66. 

*  The  name  is  variously  given  as  Par-napishtim,  Pir-napistim,  Ut- 
n  apish  tim,  or  in  its  Greek  form  Xisuthros.  The  last  is  a  form  of  the  name 
Atra-hasis  (  =  very  clever),  also  given  to  the  hero.  The  full  account  may  be 
seen  in  Sayce  (Higher  Criticism,  and  Early  Israel) ;  Pinches,  as  above ; 
Driver's  Genesis,  pp.  104-6,  etc. 


ARCHAEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    405 

the  saving  of  himself  and  of  the  seed  of  life  of  every  sort; 
how,  \\hfii  the  ship  was  built  and  smeared  with  bitumen, 
he  took  into  it  his  household  and  the  animals  (the  sun-god 
Samas  commands:  "Enter  into  thy  ship,  and  close  thy 
door");  how  the  flood  came  and  destroyed  mankind;  how 
the  ship  rested  on  the  mountain  Nizir  (E.  of  Tigris) ;  hu\v 
after  seven  days  he  sent  forth  in  succession  a  dove,  a 
swallaic,  and  a  raven,  the  last  of  which  did  not  return ;  how 
he  then  sent  forth  the  animals,  and  offered  a  sacrifice,  to 
which  the  gods  "  gathered  like  flies  " ;  how  the  bow  was  set 
in  the  heaven  (?),  etc.  The  hero  is  ultimately,  like  Enoch, 
translated  to  the  abode  of  the  gods  without  dying.  It  was 
before  mentioned  that  the  parallel  with  the  Babylonian 
story  requires  for  its  completeness  both  the  Elohistic  and 
the  Jehovistic  narratives  in  Genesis — a  fact  with  important 
bearings  on  the  critical  analysis.1 

3.  There  can  be  no  dispute,  therefore,  as  to  the  close 
relationship  of  the  old  Babylonian  traditions  with  the  early 
narratives  in  Genesis,2  the  question  which  remains  is,  How 
are  thefo  similarities  to  be  explained  ? 

(1)  The  favourite  hypothesis  in  critical  circles  up  to  the 
present  is  that  of  borrowing  on  the  part  of  the  Israelites  from 
the  Babylonians;  and,  as  the  Babylonians  are  undeniably  the 
older  people,  this  view  may  seem  to  have  much  to  commend  it. 
The  Biblical  writers,  it  is  thought,  or,  before  them,  the  nation, 
adopted  the  legends  in  question,  purifying  them,  perhaps 
gradually,  from  polytheistic  elements,  and  making  them 
the  vehicles  of  the  purer  ideas  of  their  own  religion.  Then 
the  further  question  arises — At  what  period  did  this  borrow- 
ing take  place  ?  and  here  we  encounter  wide  divergences 
of  opinion.  In  accordance  with  the  date  they  assign  to  the 
Priestly  Writing,  the  tendency  in  the  Wellhausen  school 
is  to  represent  it  as  taking  place  in  the  exile,  or  later.3 
To  this  view,  however,  an  increasing  band  of  scholars,  largely 
influenced  by  archaeology,  raise  objections  which  seem  in- 

1  See  above,  p.  848. 

1  Cheyne  says  that  "  a  ]>artieular  critical  theory,  viz.,  that  the  narrative 
in  Gen.  i.  is  the  product  of  the  reflection  of  a  late  priestly  writer,  is  no  doubt 
refuted."  (H«  refers  to  Wellhansen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  298.)— Oiford 
Htxateueh,  i.  p.  165. 

8  Gunkel  says:  "  It  suits  the  peculiar  tendency  of  modern  Old  Testament 
science  to  place  this  borrowing,  assuming  it  conceded,  as  late  as  possible." — 
Grnuis,  p.  117. 


406    ARCHAEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

superable.1  How  extremely  improbable  that  any  Israelite, 
of  the  time  of  the  exile,  should  dream  of  taking  over  these 
grossly  polytheistic  stories  from  a  heathen  people,  and  of 
placing  them,  in  purified  form,  in  the  forefront  of  his  Book 
of  the  Law ! 2  The  purification  itself,  assuming  it  to  have 
taken  place,  is  not  so  easy  a  task  as  is  supposed,  and  can 
only  be  thought  of  as  a  long  process.3  The  same  objection, 
nearly,  applies  to  the  borrowing  of  the  Babylonian  myths 
in  the  age  of  Ahaz,  or  in  the  reign  of  Solomon.  A  new  vista 
of  possibility,  however,  opens  itself  with  the  Tel  el-Amarna 
discoveries — on  which  more  below — which  show  Canaan 
to  have  been,  in  the  fifteenth  century  B.C.,  penetrated  with 
Babylonian  influences  and  culture.  May  we  not  assume 
that  the  Israelites  borrowed  these  legends,  with  other 
elements  of  their  civilisation,  from  the  Canaanites,  after 
they  had  come  into  possession  of  the  land  ?  *  To  anyone 
who  retains  the  least  faith  in  the  Biblical  picture  of  the 
Mosaic  age,  or  of  the  relations  of  the  Israelites  and 
Canaanites  after  the  conquest,  the  improbability  of  such 
borrowing  will  appear  as  great  as  in  the  exilian  theory. 
This  is  the  difficulty  of  the  "  process  " — how  is  it  to  get  a 
start  ?  For  at  some  point  the  legends  must  have  been 
taken  over  in  their  grossly  polytheistic  form :  nay,  must 
long  have  retained  that  form  in  the  bosom  of  Jehovah- 
worshipping  Israel.5  Is  this  likely,  or  is  there  any  proof 

1  Thus  Schrader,  Gunkel,  Winckler,  Zimmern,  Oettli,  Kittel,  etc. 

9  Cf.  Gunkel,  Genesis,  p.  117. 

'Ibid.  p.  118:  "The  two  recensions  (of  the  creation  story)  are  so 
immensely  different,  that  we  must  necessarily  assume  a  long  history  and  a 
great  length  of  time  for  the  mythological  so  entirely  to  vanish  and  the 
Babylonian  to  become  so  completely  Israelitised."  Kittel  says  :  "  There  can 
be  no  question  that  such  a  rejection  or  complete  transformation  of  mytho- 
logical ideas  would  involve  a  far  more  pregnant  and  original  act  of  genins 
than  that  involved  in  their  first  conception." — Bib.  Exams,  p.  45.  Cf.  Driver, 
Authority  and  Archaeology,  p.  15 :  "It  is  incredible  that  the  monotheistic 
author  of  Gen.  i.,  at  whatever  date  he  lived,  could  have  borrowed  any  detail, 
however  slight,  from  the  crassly  polytheistic  epic  of  the  conflict  of  Marduk 
and  Tiamat :  the  Babylonian  myth  must  have  been  for  long  years  trans- 
planted into  Israel,  it  must  there  have  been  gradually  divested  of  its 
polytheistic  features,"  etc. 

*  This  is  the  view  favoured  by  Gunkel  (Genesis,  pp.  68,  118),  Sayce, 
Winckler,  etc. 

*  Dr.  Driver  truly  says  that  this  view  "  is  consistent  only  with  a  critical 
theory  of  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  not  with  the  traditional  view," 
for  that  Moses,  who  "set  his  face  sternly  and  consistently  against  all  inter- 
course with  the  Canaanites,  and  all  compromises  with  polytheism,  should 
have  gone  to  Canaan  for  his  cosmogony,  is  in  the  last  degree  improbable  " 


A1U  H.KOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    407 

of  it  ?  There  is  one  other  possibility — that  the  Hebrews 
brought  these  traditions  with  them  in  their  original  migration 
from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees.1  But  once  this  is  admitted,  we 
come  in  sight  of  an  alternative  hypothesis,  on  which  some- 
thing will  immediately  be  said. 

An  objection  urged  to  this  view  of  the  antiquity  of  the 
Biblical  traditions  is  the  absence  of  all  allusions  to  them  in 
the  pre-exilian  writings.  "  With  regard  both  to  the  Creation 
and  to  the  Deluge  stories,"  says  Dr.  Cheyne,  "  if  they  were 
in  circulation  in  early  pre-exilic  times,  it  is  difficult  to 
understand  the  absence  of  any  direct  allusion  to  them  in 
the  undoubted  pre-exilic  writings."2  This  is  once  more 
the  argument  from  silence,  so  often  shown  to  be  incon- 
clusive.8 But  the  argument  in  this  case  proves  too  much  : 
the  silence,  besides,  is  not  so  complete  as  the  objection 
represents.  The  Deluge  is  part  of  the  Jehovistic  story, 
which  most  critics  place  in  the  ninth  or  eighth  century  B.C. 
It  is  referred  to  also,  as  before  shown,4  in  Isa.  liv.  9,  in  a 
way  which  implies  pre-exilian  knowledge.  The  creation 
narrative,  again,  forms  the  basis  of  the  Fourth  Commandment 
in  Ex.  xx.  11 ;  seems  alluded  to  in  Deut.  iv.  32;  and  is  the 
foundation  of  Ps.  viii.  and  civ.  To  put  all  these  references  and 
psalms  late  because  Gen.  L  is  assumed  to  be  post-exilian,  is 
to  beg  the  question. 

(2)  We  do  not  say  that  the  hypothesis  of  the  borrowing 
of  Babylonian  myths,  and  of  their  purification  by  the  spirit 

{Authority  and  Ardirrolcxfy,  p.  16).  But  putting  traditional  views  aside, 
does  Dr.  Driver  think  that  the  Mosaic  religion  at  any  time  sanctioned 
intercourse  with  the  Canaanites  or  "compromises  with  polytheism"?  If 
not,  what  becomes  of  his  own  view  that  ' '  the  cosmogony  of  Gen.  i.  pre- 
supposes a  long  period  of  naturalisation  in  Israel,  during  which  the  old 
legend  was  stripped  of  its  pagan  deformities"  (p.  17).  How  was  the 
naturalisation  of  the  j<a>jan  myth  effected? 

1  This  is  the  view  of  Schroder  and  others.  (See  below).  "I  am  led," 
says  this  scholar,  "to  the  oWious  conclusion  that  the  Hebrews  were 
acquainted  with  this  (flood)  legend  at  a  much  earlier  period,  and  that  it 
is  far  from  impossible  that  they  acquired  a  knowledge  of  these  and  the 
other  i>i  imitiv.  myths  now  under  investigation  as  far  back  as  in  the  time 
of  their  primitive  settlements  in  Babylonia,  and  that  they  carried  these 
stories  with  them  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees." — Cuneiform  Inscriptions,  i. 
p.  54. 

1  Oxf.  Hexatsuch,  p.  166  :  so  F.  Delitzsch  and  others. 

1  Ounkel  says:  "That  the  legend  of  the  flood  is  mentioned  so  late  in 
the  part  of  the  literature  preserved  to  us  proves  nothing  at  all.'' — Genesis, 
p.  67. 

4  See  above,  p.  374. 


4oS    ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

of  revelation  in  Israel,  in  such  wise  that  they  become  the 
vehicles  of  higher  teaching,  is  abstractly  inadmissible ;  but 
we  do  not  think  it  is  the  conclusion  which  most  naturally 
follows  from  the  comparison  of  the  Biblical  and  Babylonian 
stories.  The  former,  it  is  allowed,  possess  a  character  of 
sobriety,  monotheistic  elevation,  and  purity  of  religious  and 
ethical  conception,  altogether  absent  from  the  latter;  the 
contrasts  vastly  overbear  the  resemblances ;  and  it  is  hard 
to  understand  how,  from  legends  so  debased,  and  foreign  to 
the  whole  genius  of  the  Israelitish  religion,  could  arise  the 
noble  products  of  a  purer  faith  which  we  have  in  our  Bible.1 
The  differences  are  so  great  as  to  lead  many  scholars  to 
seek  the  explanation  of  the  resemblance  along  another  line 
altogether — in  a  relation  of  cognateness,  rather  than  one  of 
derivation?  On  this  view,  the  Biblical  stories  are  not  late 
and  purified  versions  of  the  Babylonian,  but  represent  an 
independent  related  version,  going  back  to  a  common  origin 
with  the  Babylonian,  but  preserving  their  monotheistic 
character  in  the  line  of  revelation,  when  the  others  had 
long  sunk  under  the  corrupting  influences  of  polytheism. 
Or,  if  purification  is  to  be  spoken  of,  it  is  purification  on 
the  basis  of  an  older  and  less  debased  tradition.  Such  a 
view  harmonises  with  the  Bible's  own  postulate  that  the 
light  of  a  true  knowledge  of  God  has  never  been  wholly 
extinguished  among  men,  and  that  from  the  first  there  has 
been  a  line  of  pious  worshippers,  a  seed  of  blessing  and 
promise,  on  the  earth. 

(3)  In  the  discussions  which  have  arisen  on  the  connection 
of  Israel  with  Babylonia,  it  is  not  surprising  that  attention 
should  latterly  have  become  focussed  on  the  question  of  how 
«far  the  old  Babylonian  religion,  among  its  other  elements, 
included  a  monotheistic  strain,  and  whether  it  is  from  this 
source  that  Israel  derived  its  monotheistic  conception. 
This  is  the  question  peculiarly  agitated  in  what — from  the 
title  of  the  lecture  of  Fried.  Delitzsch  which  inaugurated  it 

1  "  These  differences,"  says  Kittel,  "show  that  we  are  on  entirely  different 
ground,  and  that  even  in  instances  where  the  words  may  be  the  same, 
another  and  altogether  different  spirit  breathes  in  them.     We  are  in  a  sphere 
differing  loto  codo  from  that  of  Babylon— it  is  quite  a  different  world  ;  there 
it  is  the  sphere  of  a  heathen  nature-worship,  with  all   its  concomitants, 
here  it  is  that  of  a  revealed  and  monotheistic  religion. "—/?/&.  Excavs.  p.  42. 

2  Thus  Dillmann,  Kittel,  Hommel,  Oettli,  etc.     See  their  views  in  Note 
B  on  the  Cognateness  of  Babylonian  and  Hebrew  Traditions. 


ARCHAEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    409 

— has  been  called  the  "Babel  and  Bible"  controversy.1 
The  truth,  it  seems  to  us,  lies  midway  between  those  who 
affirm,  and  those  who  deny,  a  monotheistic  substratum  in 
the  Babylonian  religion.2  That  Israel  borrowed  its  idea 
of  the  one  God  from  this  source  is  another  matter.  The- 
name  JA'U  —  corresponding  with  Yahweh  —  may  or  may 
not  be  found,  as  alleged,  on  tablets  of  the  Hammurabi  age. 
Reading  and  meaning  of  the  inscriptions  are  still  under 
discussion.*  But  this,  though  interesting  in  its  bearings 
on  the  age  of  the  name,  proves  nothing  as  to  its  Babylonian 
origin.  F.  Delitzsch  himself  does  not  take  it  to  be  a  native 
Babylonian  name  of  God.* 

II L  THE  ABRAHAMIC  AGE — THE  CHEDORLAOMER 
EXPEDITION 

Archaeology  throws  new  and  valuable  light  upon  the 
patriarchal  age.  The  patriarchs  themselves,  whom  it  was 
proposed  to  resolve  into  tribal  personifications,  are  found  to 
bear  personal  names  with  which  their  age  was  perfectly 
familiar.  A  name  Abe-ramu,  almost  the  same  as  Abraham, 
appears  on  a  contract-tablet  of  the  second  reign  before 
Hammurabi.*  Other  contract-tablets  of  that  age  exhibit 

1  Fried.  Delitzsch  in  this  lecture  argues  that  Israel  owes  its  monotheistic 
conception,  and  the  name  Yahweh,  to  Babylonia, — Babel  undBibel,  pp.  59  ff. 

1  See  above,  p.  128.  Winckler  does  not  inexactly  express  the  matter 
when  he  says:  "The  character  of  the  Babylonian  religion  reveals  itself  at 
the  first  glance.  It  is  a  star-religion — moon,  sun,  and  stars  play  in  it  the 
chief  r6le.  But  it  would  be  to  mistake  its  essence  to  suppose  that  in  the 
doctrine  the  heavenly  bodies  were  the  Godhead  itself.  The  stars  are  rather 
in  the  Babylonian  doctrine  only  the  chiefest  revelation  of  the  divine  Power  ; 
that  revelation  in  which  its  rule  and  designs  can  be  most  clearly  observed. 
For  the  rest,  all  being,  all  that  is  visible  or  invisible,  is  in  the  same  way  an 
emanation  or  part  of  the  divine  essence.  There  are  many,  nay  numberless 
gods ;  but  they  are  only  revelation-forms  of  the  one  great  divine  might," 
e\c.—DU  Babylon.  Kultur,  p.  19  (slightly  abridged). 

1  F.  Delitzsch,  Hommel,  Sayce,  Pinches,  etc.,  uphold  the  reading ;  Konig 
<  Bibel  vnd  Babel,  pp.  45  tf.)  contests  it ;  Jeremias  (Das  A.  T.  im  lAchte  dfs 
Alt.  Orients,  p.  211)  agrees  with  Hommel.  Zimmern,  and  most  others, 
as  Budde,  Gnnkel,  Oettli,  Kittel,  either  reject  the  reading,  or  regard  it  as 
extremely  questionable. 

4  Driver  also  says  :  "  The  names  [viz.,  those  containing  this  element]  are 
not  Babylonian,  and  must  therefore  have  belonged  to  foreigners — whether 
Canaanitea,  or  ancestors  of  tlie  Hebrews." — Qenesi*,  p.  xlix. 

•  Cf.  Pinches,  0.  T.  in  Light  of  Hist.  Records,  p.  148.  Abu-ramu  (Abram) 
was  the  name  of  an  Assyrian  official  in  the  reign  of  Esarhnddon  (ibid.).  It 
may  be  noticed  that  ''the  field  of  Abram"  has  been  deciphered  on  a 
monument  of  Shishak  (Pal.  Explor.  Quart.  Statement,  Jan.  1905,  p.  7). 


410    ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  names  Jacob  and  Jacob-el.1  The  names  Jacob-el  and 
Joseph-el  appear  on  a  monument  of  Thothmes  m.  of  Egypt 
(about  1500  B.C.)  as  place-names  in  Palestine.  In  other 
ways  the  whole  period  has  been  lifted  up  into  new  and 
commanding  importance.  It  is  generally  accepted  that 
the  Hammurabi  of  the  inscriptions  is  no  other  than  the 
Amraphel  of  Gen.  xiv.  1 ;  and  the  discovery  of  the  Code  of 
this  able  ruler  has  giveu  his  name  an  6dat  it  can  never 
again  lose.2  The  discovery  was  made  at  Susa  in  Jan.  1902, 
and  the  Code  itself,  the  most  complete  and  finished  of  any 
in  antiquity,  shows  the  height  of  civilisation  to  which  the 
Babylonia  of  Abraham's  day  had  attained.3  The  discovery 
bears  directly  on  the  possibility  of  such  codes  of  law  as  we 
find  attributed  to  Moses  in  the  Pentateuch — e.g.,  the  Code 
in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant, — and  particular  provisions 
prove  the  minute  fidelity  with  which  the  patriarchal  history 
reflects  the  customs  of  that  early  time.  Such,  as  formerly 
shown,4  is  the  law  providing  that  the  childless  wife  may 
give  her  maid  to  be  a  concubine ;  and  directing  what  is  to 
be  done  should  the  woman  afterwards  have  a  dispute  with 
her  mistress  because  she  has  borne  children ! 5 

One  of  the  most  striking  instances  of  the  confirmation 
of  the  historical  accuracy  of  the  patriarchal  narratives  is 
that  connected  with  the  expedition  of  Chedorlaomer  in 
Gen.  xiv.  The  events  recorded  in  this  chapter  are  very 
remote,  going  back,  most  probably,  to  about  2100  B.C.6  The 

'Johns,  Deeds  and  Documents,  pp.  164,  167.  Kittel  says:  "We  now 
know  that  in  ancient  times  Jacob  was  an  ordinary  personal  name,  and 
nothing  more." — Bab.  Excavs.  p.  81. 

a  Cf.  art.  by  C.  W.  H.  Johns  on  "  Code  of  Hammurabi "  in  Diet,  of 
BWe  (Extra  Vol.) ;  or  his  Oldest  Code  of  Laics  in  the  World.  Gunkel  says  : 
"  And  this  law  was  codified  about  2200  B.C.;  it  originates  from  a  time  one 
thousand  years  before  there  was  any  people  of  Israel.  It  is  removed  from, 
Moses  as  far  as  we  are  from  Charlemagne  !  " — Israel  und  Bab.  p.  7  (the 
interval  was  probably  less — see  below). 

8  Sayce  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  Babylonia  of  the  age  of  Abraham 
"was  a  more  highly  educated  country  than  the  England  of  George  ill." — 
Monument  Facts,  p.  35. 

4  See  above,  p.  115.  '  Cf.  Code,  arts.  145,  146,  etc. 

"  On  the  uncertainties  of  the  chronology,  see  Hommel,  Ancient  Heb.  Trad. 
pp.  120  ff.  Two  data  are  important.  An  inscription  of  Assurbanipal  states 
that  the  conquest  of  Babylonia  by  the  Elamites  happened  one  thousand  six 
hundred  and  thirty-five  years  before  his  own  conquest  of  Elam,  or  in  2280  B.C. 
How  long  the  Elamitic  rale  lasted  we  cannot  tell,  but  Chedorlaomer  was  the 
last  represeutative  of  it.  More  definitely,  Nabonidus  states  that  Burnaburias 
restored  the  temple  of  the  sun  at  Larsa  seven  hundred  years  after  Hammu- 


ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

historical  relations  also  are  intricate,  and  in  part  singular. 
They  are  such  as  floating  tradition  could  neither  have  in- 
vented nor  preserved.  It  is  implied  in  the  story  that  a 
king  of  Elain,  Chedorlaomer  (a  strange  name),  at  that  time 
held  sovereignty  over  Babylonia;  that,  with  the  vassal 
kings,  whose  names  are  given,  he  made  an  expedition  against 
Palestine ;  that  a  second  expedition  was  undertaken  fourteen 
years  later  to  crush  rebellion.  The  chapter  further  tells 
how  Lot  was  carried  away  prisoner,  and  how  Abraham 
organised  a  pursuit,  and  rescued  him.  The  historical 
character  of  this  narrative  was  widely  discredited — as  by 
Nbldeke.1  How  could  a  late  Tsraelitish  writer  possibly 
know  of  such  events  ?  How  could  such  an  expedition  take 
place  ?  How  could  such  a  rescue  be  effected  ?  The  story 
was  declared  to  be  a  complete  fiction.  Strange  as  it  is, 
however,  it  has  now,  as  respects  its  historical  framework, 
been  singularly  confirmed.  It  has  been  established  by 
indubitable  evidence  that  Babylonia  was  at  this  time  under 
Elamitic  suzerainty;  we  have  even  the  name  and  date  (e. 
2280  B.C.)  of  the  king  who  overran  it.  It  was  found,  further, 
that  the  known  names  of  the  kings  of  this  Elamitic  dynasty 
began  with  the  word  "Kudur,"  meaning  "servant" — thus 
Kudur-Nankhundi,  Kudur-Mabug.  It  was  discovered  that 
there  was  an  Elamitic  goddess  named  "  Lagamar,"  so  that 
Kudur-Lagamar  (Chedorlaomer)  was  a  name  of  genuine 
Elamitic  formation.  It  was  found  that  these  kings  claimed 
sovereignty  over  "  Martu  "  (the  west),  or  Palestine.  It  was 
ascertained  that  Kudur-Mabug  had  a  son — Eri-aku  (also 
called  Rim-sin),  king  of  Larsa :  there  can  be  little  doubt,  the 
Arioch  of  Ellasar  of  this  chapter.  Amraphel  was  identified 
with  Hammurabi.2  Finally,  it  was  announced  that  the 

rilii.  The  date  of  the  king  referred  to  (cf.  Hommel,  art.  "Babylonia," 
Ji'et.  of  Bible,  i.  p.  224)  is  about  1400  B.C.,  which  yields  2100  B.C.  for 
H.immurnbi,  the  Amraphel  of  this  expedition. 

1  Wellhausen  speaks  of  faith  in  the  historicity  of  this  narrative  as  having 
TV  eived  its  "deathblow"  from  Noldeke,  and  pronounces  Noldeke's 
criticism  to  be  "  unshaken  and  unanswerable  "  (Compos,  d.  Ilex.  pp.  311-12). 
On  earlier  attacks  on  the  historicity,  see  Dillniann,  Genesis,  ii.  pp.  32-83, 
ami  Delitzach,  Gencsi*,  i.  pp.  396-98. 

3  For  details,  reference  may  be  made  to  Schrader,  i.  pp.  120  ff.  ;  and 
specially  ii.  pp.  296  ff. ;  and  to  the  works  of  Sayce,  Hommel,  Pinches, 
Driver,  Gunkel,  Kittel,  Jeremias,  etc.  Gunkel  says:  "A  narrative  which 
knows  how  to  speak  of  so  many  very  ancient  names  and  relations  makes  first 
the  impression  of  tho  highest  antiquity.  For  very  ancient  also,  so  far  »»  \\u 
can  see,  are  all  the  following  names  (in  vera.  1  if.) :  they  are  almost  entirely 


4I2    ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

iiame  of  Chedorlaomer  himself  had  been  found  on  a  late 
inscription.  The  identification  is  questioned,  and  we  need 
not  press  it ;  but  it  is  significant  that  three  leading  specialists, 
Dr.  Pinches  (the  discoverer),  Professor  Hommel,  and 
Professor  Sayce,  still  express  themselves  satisfied  of  the 
correctness  of  the  reading.1  In  any  case,  it  seems  abun- 
dantly made  out  that  the  author  of  this  chapter  is  not 
romancing,  but  writes  with  a  clear  knowledge  of  the 
historical  conditions  of  the  times  to  which  his  narrative 
relatea  For  the  rest,  the  Tel  el-Amarna  tablets  testify  to 
Uru-Salim  as  an  ancient  Canaanitish  name  for  Jerusalem, 
and  even  Gunkel  is  disposed  to  accept  Melchizedek  as  an 
historical  person.2 

All  this,  it  is  now  to  be  owned,  makes  not  the  slightest 
impression  on  most  of  the  critics.  Even  Dr.  Driver  can 
write :  "  Monumental  evidence  that  the  narrative  is  historical 
is  at  present  entirely  lacking."8  It  does  not  matter  that 
the  historical  setting  of  the  story  —  even  in  the  points 
that  were  formerly  challenged — is  proved  to  be  surprisingly 
correct ;  it  is  held  sufficient  to  reply  that  there  has  not  been 
found  on  the  monuments  any  direct  mention  of  Abraham 
and  his  rescue  of  Lot.  As  if  this  had  ever  been  claimed,  or 
was  a  reasonable  thing  to  expect.  What  is  claimed  is,  that 
the  writer  of  this  chapter  is  proved  to  have  his  feet  on  firm 
historical  ground  in  these  remote  times;  that  he  knows 
what  he  is  writing  about,  and  is  not  romancing ;  and  that, 
when  we  find  his  narrative  trustworthy  in  a  multitude  of 
difficult  points  where  we  can  test  it,  we  are  entitled  to  give 
him  credit  for  like  fidelity  in  the  parts  we  cannot  test.  This 
would  seem  to  be  the  common-sense  way  of  looking  at  the 
matter ;  yet  the  critics  prefer  to  believe  that  the  chapter  is 
an  "  unhistorical  Midrash  "  of  the  time  of  the  exile,  or  later, 

names  of  peoples  and  cities  which  in  the  time  of  Israel  had  long  absolutely 
disappeared,  and  which  the  author  needs  to  explain  by  glosses  to  his  con- 
temporaries."— Genesis,  p.  256.  He  combats  the  post-exilian  origin  of  the 
story  (p.  263). 

*See  their  respective  works.  Professor  Sayce,  in  a  personal  communica- 
tion, June  10,  1902,  says:  "Hommel,  Pinches,  and  myself  still  adhere  to 
the  reading  of  the  name  of  Chedorlaomer  in  a  tablet  discovered  by  Mr. 
Pinches." 

3  Genesis,  pp.  261-62  ;  cf.  Jeremias,  ut  supra,  p.  218. 

8  Genesis,  p.  172.  Dr.  Driver  will  only  go  so  far  as  to  concede  that 
"the  outline  of  the  narrative  may  still  be  historical."  Cf.  also  Authority 
and  Archaeology,  pp.  44,  45. 


A  IK  II  .EULOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    413 

drawn  up  by  someone  who  had  chanced  to  fall  in  with  a 
ti  .lament  of  old  Babylonian  history,  and  pleased  himself  by 
waiving  into  it  these  traditions  or  fables  of  Abraham  and 
Li  >t ! 1  How  interesting  the  combination  of  accurate  archa'o- 
-t  and  romancing  fabulist  which  this  theory  presents  I — 
a  theory  for  which,  we  are  justified  in  affirming,  there  is 
no  evidence  whatever,  and  which  is  opposed  to  every  con- 
sideration of  probability.  One  feels,  in  reading  the  narrative, 
that  it  is  of  a  piece  throughout  in  its  archaic  character,  and 
must  be  taken  as  a  whole,  or  left  as  a  whole.2  As  Hommel 
well  remarks :  "  Even  assuming  Gen.  xiv.  to  be  nothing 
more  than  a  very  late  narrative  of  a  Midrash  character, 
belonging  to  post-exilic  times,  how  came  its  author  to 
introduce  into  it  a  whole  host  of  ancient  phrases  and  names, 
to  which  he  himself  is  obliged  to  add  explanatory  glosses,  in 
order  that  they  may  be  better  understood  ?  .  .  .  Are  we  to 
assume  that  he  did  this  intentionally  in  order  to  invest  his 
story  with  an  air  of  greater  antiquity  ?  In  that  case,  all  we 
can  say  is,  that  no  similar  example  of  literary  finesse  can  be 
found  throughout  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament"8  It 
need  not  be  added  that  many  critics  of  more  positive 
tendency  put  much  greater  value  on  the  narrative,  and 
ably  defend  its  historicity.* 

IV.  JOSEPH  IN  EGYPT 

With  Abraham  first,  and  afterwards  with  Joseph,  the 
patriarchal  history  quits  Canaan,  and  transports  us  into 
the  midst  of  Egypt.  Abraham  went  down  to  Egypt  to 
escape  famine,  and  was  there  received  with  honour  by  the 
reigning  Pharaoh : 6  but  it  is  with  the  history  of  Joseph 
that  we  pass  definitely  into  the  full  blaze  of  Egyptian 
civilisation.  On  the  remarkable  fidelity  of  the  Egyptian 

1  See  Note  C  on  the  Alleged  Midrash  character  of  Gen.  xiv. 

1  Kueuen,  who  holds  the  chapter  to  be  a  post-exilian  Midrash,  still 
allows  that  "  the  story  is  in  it*  proper  place,  for  it  presupposes  Lot's 
separation  from  Aoram,  and  his  settlement  in  Sodom." — Hex,  p.  143  (cf. 
p.  324). 

1  AnfieiU  ffcb.  Trad.  pp.  163-64. 

4  See  the  defence  of  the  historicity  in  Dillmann,  Otnt.tis,  ii.  pp.  82-33. 
Pclitzsch,  i.  pp.  396-98;  Kittel,  Hitt.  of  Hebrews,  i.  pp.  175ff.  (with  con- 
cession of  revisions).  So  Kcinig,  Klostermann,  etc.  Cf.  also  Tomkius, 
Abraham  ami  His  Agt  (1897),  chap.  xiii. 

•  Gen.  zii.     On  the  Egyptian  relations,  cf.  Tomkins,  as  above. 


414    ARCHAEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

colouring  of  the  narrative  of  this  part  of  Genesis  nearly  all 
scholars  may  be  said  to  be  agreed.1  The  colouring  is  so  fresh 
and  vivid,  the  portraiture  of  manners  so  exact,  the  allu- 
sions to  customs  and  institutions  are  so  minute,  that  it 
would  be  endless  to  dwell  on  them.  We  have  the  slave- 
market  ;  Potiphar's  house,  with  its  Egyptian  arrangements  ; 
the  prison ;  Pharaoh's  butler  and  baker,  the  latter  with  his 
baskets  of  confectionery ;  Pharaoh's  dreams,  so  Egyptian  in 
their  character;  Joseph  as  prime  minister,  buying  and 
selling  corn ;  the  divining-cup,  the  chariots,  the  waggons  sent 
to  Jacob ;  we  have  Egyptian  names,  sitting  at  meals,  shaving 
the  beard,  embalming  the  body,  sacred  scribes,  priests, 
physicians,  other  state  functionaries;  in  short,  we  find 
ourselves  veritably  on  the  banks  of  the  Nile,  with  Egyptian 
social  and  court  life  in  full  movement  around  us. 

It  is  perhaps  more  to  the  purpose  to  remark  that  it  is 
precisely  the  points  in  the  history  of  Joseph  which  were 
formerly  challenged  which  have  received  clearest  illustration 
and  confirmation  from  the  monuments.  Thus  it  was  denied 
by  Von  Bohlen  and  others,  on  the  authority  of  Herodotus, 
that  the  vine  was  cultivated  in  Egypt ;  it  was  denied  that 
flesh  was  an  article  of  diet  among  the  upper  classes  of  the 
Egyptians  ;  the  free  manners  of  the  women  were  alleged  to 
conflict  with  Oriental  privacy ;  the  elevation  of  a  young 
Hebrew  to  the  position  of  prime  minister  was  thought  to 
savour  of  romance;  the  presents  of  Pharaoh  to  Abraham 
were  objected  to  because  they  included  sheep  and  oxen, 
which  were  objects  of  hatred  in  Egypt,  and  did  not  include 
horses,  which,  in  Joseph's  day,  were  common.  These  objec- 
tions have  disappeared  with  fuller  knowledge,  but  serve  to 
show  the  impossibility  of  anyone  in  a  later  age  composing 
a  narrative  of  this  kind  without  falling  into  serious  errors. 
The  monuments,  it  is  well  known,  show  the  process  of  wine- 
making  in  all  its  stages  ; 2  they  reveal  that,  in  the  words  of 
liawlinson,  "  animal  food  was  the  principal  diet  of  the  upper 

1  The  proof  on  this  subject  is  so  abundant  that  we  must  refer  to  the 
books  for  details.  Some  of  the  chief  are,  Ebers,  Aeyypten  und  Die  Biichcr 
Moses,  i.  pp.  295  ff.,  and  art.  "  Joseph  "  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  Bible,  i.  (1893) ; 
Driver,  art.  "Joseph,"  in  Diet,  of  Bible,  ii.,  and  in  Authority  and  Archceol. 
and  Genesis;  Tomkins,  Life  and  Times  of  Joseph  (1891);  Visrouroux,  La 
Bible  et  les  De^ouvertes  Modernes,  ii.  ;  Rawlinson's  Historical  Illustrations, 
pp.  38  if. ;  Sayce,  Higher  Criticism,  pp.  207  ff. 

«  Cf.  Ebei-s,  Smith's  D.  of  B.  i.  p.  1795. 


ARCHAEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    415 

classes";1  they  illustrate  the  freedom  allowed  to  women; 
they  furnish  representations  of  sheep  and  oxen ;  while  the 
absence  of  horses  in  Abraham's  time  proves  to  be  a  mark 
of  truth  in  the  narrative,  for  horses  seem  to  have  been 
unknown  in  the  twelfth  and  earlier  dynasties,  and  were 
first  introduced  under  the  Hyksos.  There,  in  Joseph's  time, 
accordingly,  they  appear.8  In  the  story  of  Saneha,  of  the 
twelfth  dynasty,  we  have  a  close  parallel  to  the  exaltation  of 
Joseph ; 3  while  on  the  tombs  of  Beni-Hassan,  of  the  same 
dynasty,  we  have  a  picture  of  the  reception  of  a  company 
of  Ainu,  or  Semites,  so  remarkably  resembling  the  case  of 
Jacob  and  his  household,  that  at  first  it  was  thought  to  be 
a  representation  of  that  patriarch's  descent  into  Egypt.4 
Reference  cannot  be  omitted  to  the  Egyptian  story,  "  The 
Tale  of  the  Two  Brothers,"  which  embodies  an  account  of 
the  temptation  of  one  of  these  brothers  by  the  wife  of  the 
other,  so  strikingly  (in  parts  almost  verbally)  parallel  to 
the  temptation  of  Joseph  by  his  mistress,  that  the  two  can 
hardly  be  independent.  As  the  Egyptian  tale  belongs  to 
the  nineteenth  dynasty6 — many  centuries  after  Joseph — 
the  story  of  Joseph  may  be  presumed  to  be  the  original.* 
A  picture,  so  full  and  faithful,  of  Egyptian  life  and) 
manners  could  only,  one  would  think,  take  its  origin  on) 
Egyptian  soil  It  is  not  a  sufficient  reply  to  say,  with-* 
Dr.  Driver,  that  Egypt  was  not  far  distant  from  Canaan, 
and  that  the  intercourse  between  the  countries  during  the 
monarchy  made  it  easy  for  a  Hebrew  writer  to  gain  a 
knowledge  of  Egyptian  customs  and  institutions.7  The 
hypothesis,  in  the  first  place,  is  gratuitous,  for  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  narrative  of  Joseph's  life,  with 
its  Egyptian  characteristics,  was  not  a  possession  of  Israel 
from  the  beginning ; 8  and  next,  it  is  inadequate,  for  it  is 

1  ffist.  niusts.  p.  60.  Cf.  on  these  points  Wilkinson's  Ancient  Egyptians, 
passim. 

-  <  ;••!!.  xlvii.  17  ;  cf.  Maspero,  Egypt  and  Assyria,  pp.  81,  82. 

*  ('I'.  Canon  Cook,  essay  at  end  of  Speaker's  Com,  on  Exodus,  p.  446. 
4  Ibiil.     Cf.  Kbere,  D.  of  B.  i.  p.  1793. 

a:  story  in  Sayce's  Higher  Criticism,  pp.  209-11.     It  was  written 
for  Seti  n.,  the  successor  of  Meneptah,  of  the  nineteenth  dynasty. 

•  Ct'.  Ehers,  as  above,  p.  1795.  7  Oenesis,  pp.  1,  li. 

8  The  influence  of  critical  theory  is  well  seen  in  Dr.  Driver's  (still  reason- 
ably conservative)  treatment  of  the  history  of  Joseph.  It  cannot  be  said,  h« 
allows,  that  there  are  serious  historical  improbabilities  in  the  mhstaitee  of  the 
history  ;  hut  the  matter,  he  -says,  assumes  a  different  aspect  "  when  account 
is  taken  (1)  of  the  fact  that  the  narratives  about  Joseph  are  plainly  not  the 


416    ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

contrary  to  analogy  that  a  writer  of  one  country  should  be 
able  so  to  transpose  himself  into  the  midst  of  a  foreign — 
even  if  a  neighbouring — civilisation,  as  to  produce  a  picture 
so  marvellously  true  to  its  life  and  conditions.  Are  we  to 
understand  that  the  problematical  J  or  E  undertook  a 
special  tour  to  Egypt — as  the  modern  novelist  might  do — 
in  order  to  acquaint  himself  by  personal  study  with  the 
customs  and  antiquities  of  that  nation?  Or  did  the  two 
writers  do  so  ?  Even  so,  we  have  only  to  think  of  a 
Frenchman,  e.g.,  attempting  to  depict  British  or  American 
life  or  manners ;  or  of  an  Englishman  or  American  writing 
minutely  about  Paris ;  or  of  a  Londoner  trying  to  describe 
Scottish  characters  and  institutions,  to  see  how  imperfect 
such  a  picture  would  necessarily  be.  We  do  not  attach 
much  importance  to  the  objections  that  the  narrative  does 
not  give  the  personal  name  of  Joseph's  Pharaoh,  and  that  the 
types  of  names  which  appear  in  it — Potiphera,  Zaphenath- 
paneah,  Asenath — do  not  become  frequent  till  the  later 
dynasties  (twenty-second,  twenty-sixth).1  It  may  strike  us, 
indeed,  as  peculiar  that,  in  the  lives  of  Joseph  and  Moses, 
the  proper  names  of  the  Pharaohs  are  not  given ;  still, 
comparison  proves  that  the  title  "  Pharaoh "  (simply)  was 
that  commonly  employed  by  Hebrew  writers  for  the  king 
of  Egypt,  even  when  the  personal  name  was  quite  well 
known;2  while  the  very  occurrence  of  the  other  names 

work  of  a  contemporary,  but  were  in  all  probability  only  committed  to 
writing  700-800  years  afterwards  ;  and  (2)  of  the  further  curious  fact  that 
'  Joseph '  (like  many  of  the  other  patriarchal  names)  is  also  a  tribal 
name,"  etc.  "The  first  of  these  facts,"  he  declares,  "at  once  destroys  all 
guarantee  that  we  possess  in  the  Joseph-narratives  a  literal  record  of  the 
facts." — Diet,  of  Bible,  ii.  p.  771.  May  not  the  character  of  the  narratives 
i  ather  be  a  proof  that  Dr.  Driver's  dating,  which  has  no  sure  basis,  is  wrong  ? 
See  above,  pp.  77-78.  It  was  pointed  out  earlier,  also,  that  Joseph  does  not, 
strictly,  give  his  name  to  a  tribe  (p.  89). 

KittePs  treatment  shows  likewise  the  Massing  effect  of  theory.  There  is, 
e.g.,  not  a  grain  of  foundation  for  such  statements  as  "when  he  (Joseph) 
emigrated  into  Egypt  his  tribesmen  were  certainly  with  him,"  etc. — Hist,  of 
Eels.  i.  p.  187. 

In  a  striking  communication  to  the  Expository  Times,  September  1899, 
Professor  Sayce  argues  strongly  that  the  history  is  substantially  a  work  of 
the  Mosaic  age,  based  on  an  Egyptian  original,  though  written  in  Palestine. 

1  Driver,  Genesis,  p.  li ;  Diet,  of  Bible,  ii.  p.  775  ;  cf.  Ebers,  as  above, 
p.  1798. 

2  E.g.,  1  Kings  ix.  16,  24  ;  xi.  1,  18,  21  (cf.  xi.  40) ;  2  Kings  xviii.  21  ; 
Isa.  xix.  11  ;  xxx.  2,  3 ;  Jer.  xliii.  (cf.  xliv.  30)  ;  xlvi.  17  ;  xlvii.  1  ;  Ezek. 
xxxi.  '2,  18  ;  xxxii.  2,  etc.     Cf.  Assyrian  usage  in  Schrader,  i.  pp.  140,  162 ; 
ii.  p.  88. 


ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    417 


how  easy  it  would  have  been  for  the  narrator  to 
ihrorate  his  story  with  names  of  kings  and  places,  had  lie 
wished  to  do  so.  The  alleged  lateness  of  particular  names 
rests,  again,  on  the  argument  from  silence,  which  may  be 
upset  at  any  moment,1  and  fails  to  take  account  of  the  fact 
that  the  Hyksos  period,  to  which  Joseph  belonged,  is  well- 
nigh  a  monumental  blank.  It  is  doubtful,  besides,  whether 
all  the  names  have  been  rightly  interpreted.1 

V.  THE  MOSAIC  PERIOD  —  THREE  GREAT  DISCOVERIES 

We  come  now  to  the  Mosaic  period,  but,  to  make  the 
bearings  of  recent  discoveries  on  this  period  intelligible, 
it  is  necessary,  first,  to  say  a  few  words  on  the  general 
course  of  Egyptian  history  and  on  the  more  important  of 
these  discoveries. 

Three  great  periods  are  commonly  distinguished  in  the 
history  of  Egypt  —  the  Old,  the  Middle,  and  the  New 
Empires.  The  Old  Empire  embraces  the  first  eleven 
dynasties  of  Manetho;  the  Middle  Empire  extends  from 
the  twelfth  dynasty  to  the  seventeenth  ;  3  the  New  Empire 
runs  from  the  eighteenth  dynasty  to  the  thirtieth,  after 
which  (340  B.C.)  Egypt  loses  its  independence. 

Of  the  Old  Empire,  the  fourth  and  fifth  dynasties  have  left 
their  memorials  in  the  great  Pyramids  ;  but  of  the  first  three 
dynasties  nothing  was  known  till  recently  from  the  monu- 
ments but  the  names  of  kings  ;  the  period  from  the  seventh 
to  the  tenth  dynasties  was  (and  remains)  hardly  less  obscure. 
The  founder  of  the  first  dynasty  bore  the  name  of  Menes  ; 
but  scholars  were  disposed  to  regard  this  king,  and  the 
first  dynasties  generally,  as  mythical.  Maspero,  in  his 
Daion  of  Civilisation,  treats  Menes  as  purely  mythical,  and 
gives  an  elaborate  explanation  of  how  the  myth  arose.4 

1  Cf.  Sayce,  Higher  Crit.  pp.  212-13  ;  Tomkins,  Joseph,  pp.  183-86. 
There  is  an  example  of  a  name  of  the  Potiphera  type  in  the  eighteenth 
dynasty  (Tomkins,  p.  185  ;  Driver,  p.  345,  and  Diet,  of  £ible,  ii.  p.  775), 
and  it  cannot  be  believed  that  it  stood  alone.  "Those  of  the  type  of 
Asenath  are  found  now  and  then  earlier  "  (Driver,  Diet.  p.  775). 

1  This  is  true  both  of  Zaphenath-paneah  and  of  Asenath.  The  latter  is 
explained  as  Nes-Neit,  "  belonging  to  Neith";  but  Bruxsch  wrote:  "The 
name  of  his  wife  Asnat  is  pure  Egyptian,  and  almost  confined  to  the  Old 
and  Middle  Empire."  —  Hint,  of  E<jyi>t,  i.  p.  265. 

8  Some  begin  the  Middle  Empire  with  Dynasty  XI. 

*  Dam  of  Civilisation,    pp.    233-34.     Menes,   according    to   Maspero, 

27 


4i 8    ARCHAEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

As  lately  as  1894,  Professor  Flinders  Petrie  could  write : 
"  The  first  three  dynasties  are  a  blank,  so  far  as  monumental 
statements  are  concerned ;  they  are  as  purely  on  a  literary 
basis  as  the  kings  of  Eome  or  the  primeval  kings  of 
Ireland.  .  .  .  We  cannot  regard  these  dynasties  as  any- 
thing but  a  series  of  statements  made  by  a  state  chrono- 
grapher,  about  3000  years  after  date,  concerning  a 
period  of  which  he  had  no  contemporary  material."1 
The  judgment  thus  passed  on  the  early  dynasties  has 
been  suddenly  reversed,  largely  by  the  brilliant  explorations 
of  Professor  Petrie  himself.  The  actual  tombs  of  Menes 
and  his  successors  have  been  discovered,  with  many  valuable 
objects  belonging  to  them,  and  the  first  two  dynasties  have 
been  clearly  proved  to  be  historical.  Civilisation,  and  the 
hieroglyphic  system  of  writing,  are  carried  back  into  pre- 
dynastic  times.2  The  result  is  a  striking  object-lesson — 
one  of  many  in  recent  years — on  the  unreliableness  of  what 
the  discoverer  calls  "  the  criticism  of  myths."  8 

In  the  Middle  Empire,  the  period  from  the  thirteenth 
dynasty  to  the  seventeenth  is  again  one  of  confusion  and 
uncertainty.  This  was  the  time  when  Egypt  was  ruled  by 
the  Hyksos,  or  Shepherd  Kings,  under  one  of  whom  Joseph 
was  taken  down  to  Egypt,4  soon  to  be  followed  by  Jacob 
with  his  household.  With  the  overthrow  of  the  Shepherd 

"owes  his  existence  to  a  popular  attempt  at  etymology"  (p.  234).  Even 
Dr.  Birch  wrote  that  Menes  "must  be  placed  among  those  founders  of 
monarchies  whose  personal  existence  a  severe  and  enlightened  criticism 
doubts  or  denies." — Egypt,  p.  25. 

1  Hist,  of  Egypt,  i.  pp.  16,  19. 

2  Un  the  nature  ana  bearings  of  "  pre-dynastic  "  discoveries,  see  Budge, 
Hist  of  Egypt,  i.  chap.  i. 

8  In  an  address  to  the  Egyptian  Exploration  Fund,  Nov.  6th,  1901, 
Professor  Petrie  is  reported  to  have  said  :  "The  continuous  order  of  seventeen 
kings  had  been  established,  and  the  very  foundations  of  Egyptian  history 
had  been  settled  in  a  manner  which  had  hitherto  seemed  beyond  hope.  .  .  . 
The  criticism  of  myths  had  told  them  that  Mena,  the  founder  of  the 
Egyptian  monarchy,  was  but  a  form  of  Manu,  the  lawgiver  of  India,  and 
of  Minos,  the  hero  of  Crete,  and  to  hope  for  tangible  monuments  of  his 
time  was  but  seeing  castles  in  cloudland.  Now  the  long  line  of  a  dozen 
kings  back  to  Mena  was  clear  before  them  ;  they  had  seen  and  handled  the 
gold,  the  crystal,  the  ivory  with  his  name  and  engravings.  .  .  .  No  such 
complete  materialisation  of  history  had  been  obtained  at  one  stroke  from 
any  other  country  or  age."  See  further  Note  D  on  the  Resurrection  of 
Myths. 

4  Joseph's  elevation  is  traditionally  connected  with  Apophis  (Apepi). 
With  the  view  of  the  chronology  indicated  below,  we  are  disposed  to  place 
it  under  Apepi  I.  (c.  1880  B.C.),  not  Apepi  n. 


AKCH.EOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    419 

Kings  came  the  founding  of  the  eighteenth  dynasty  under 
Aahines,  and  the  beginning  of  the  New  Empire.  Under 
the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  dynasties  we  reach,  perhaps, 
the  period  of  greatest  splendour  in  Egypt.  It  is  a  period  of 
the  greatest  interest  to  the  Biblical  student,  for  it  is  under 
one  or  other  of  these  dynasties,  undoubtedly,  that  we  are 
to  seek  for  the  Israelitish  oppression,  and  for  the  Exodus. 
The  prevailing  opinion  among  scholars  has  been  that  tho 
Pharaoh  of  the  oppression  was  the  great  ruler  Barneses  n., 
and  that  the  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus  was  his  son  Meneptah, 
or  one  of  his  immediate  successors.  Much  may  be  said 
for  this  identification.  Especially  does  it  seem  to  be 
indicated  by  the  mention  in  Ex.  L  11  of  the  building  of 
the  store  cities  Pithom  and  Eaamses,  both  of  which 
are  directly  connected,  the  one  (Pi-tum,  discovered  by 
M.  Naville  in  1883 x)  by  its  bricks,  the  other  by  its  name, 
with  Rameses  II.8  Yet  three  great  discoveries  in  recent 
times  have  again  thrown  more  than  doubt  on  the 
identification* 

1.  First  in  order  was  the  astonishing  discovery,  in  1881, 
of  the  mummies  of  the  Pharaohs  themselves.  In  a  gallery 
given  off  from  a  pit,  35  feet  deep,  in  a  mountain  gorge 
a  few  miles  from  Thebes,  some  thirty -nine  mummies  were 
found,  which  proved  on  inspection  to  include  amongst  them 
the  most  renowned  kings  and  queens  of  Egypt  from  the 
seventeenth  to  the  twenty-first  dynasties.  "  At  the  first 
report  of  the  discovery,"  wrote  one,  "  the  boldest  held  his 
breath,  so  astounding  is  the  list,  which  includes  almost 
every  name  most  renowned  in  the  annals  of  Egypt."  The 
list  embraced  Aahmes,  founder  of  the  eighteenth  dynasty ; 
Thothmes  in.,  and  other  kings  of  the  same  dynasty; 
Rameses  L,  Seti  L,  and  Rameses  II.,  of  the  nineteenth  dynasty.3 

1  Cf.  his  Store  City  of  PUhoin  and  the  H-mlt  of  (he  Exodus  (1885). 

1  On  the  historicity  of  these  notices,  cf.  Kittel,  Hist,  of  Hcbs.  L  pp. 
254-56.  He  shows  the  difficulties  of  the  supposition  that  the  Hebrew  writer 
"  obtained  information  respecting  the  building  of  Pithom  and  Raamses  by 
means  of  scholarly  investigation,  and  then  attached  to  this  the  national  tradi- 
tion of  the  Israelites"  (p.  255).  It  will  naturally  occur  that  a  writer  who 
could  name  these  cities  could  also  have  named  the  Pharaoh  had  he  chosen. 
The  problems  about  the  city  Raamses,  however,  are  not  yet  satisfactorily 
solved.  See  Note  E  on  the  Identification  of  Raamses. 

'  Oar  notice  is  based  on  cont»-mj>orary  reports.  A  popular  account  is 
given  of  this  and  of  Naville's  discovery  in  The  Pharaohs  of  the  Bondage  and 
the  Exodus,  by  Chas.  S.  Robinson,  D.D.,  New  York  (1887).  See  also 
Nicol,  Recent  Archeology  and  the  Bible,  pp.  16,  If. 


420    ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

A'  subsequent  discovery  of  the  tomb  of  Amenophis  II., 
in  1898,  added  seven  other  mummies  to  the  list.  One  of 
these,  taken  at  first  for  that  of  Amenophis  n.,  was  found 
later  to  be  the  mummy  of  Meneptah,  the  supposed 
Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus.1  To  whatever  period  the  Exodus 
is  assigned,  it  is  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  we  have  in 
our  possession  the  actual  mummy  of  the  Pharaoh  who 
oppressed  the  Israelites,  and  from  whose  face  Moses  fled. 

2.  This  first  discovery  was  eclipsed,  in  1887,  by  a  second, 
still  more  extensive  in  its  bearings.     This  was  the  discovery, 
already  repeatedly  referred  to,  at  Tel  el-Amarna  (a  place 
on   the   eastern   bank    of    the  Nile,    180   miles   south   of 
Cairo),  of  a  mass  of  inscribed  tablets,  some  three  hundred  in 
number,  forming  part,  as  it   proved,  of  the  official  corre- 
spondence of  two  of  the  later  kings  of  the  eighteenth  dynasty 
— Amenophis  ni.  and  Amenophis  IV.2     This  latter  king  (c. 
1380  B.C.),  otherwise  called  Khu-n-aten,  was  a  "  heretic  king." 
He  sought  to  introduce,  and  compulsorily  to  enforce,  a  new 
worship — that  of  the  solar  disk   (Aten).      The   opposition 
he   encountered  led  him  to   leave  Thebes,  and  found  this 
new  capital,  whither  he  removed  the  court  records  of  his 
father    and    himself.     The    remarkable    thing    about    the 
correspondence  is   that   the    tablets    are   written,  not  in 
Egyptian   hieroglyphic,  but   in    Babylonian  cuneiform — a 
fact  of  the  utmost  importance  as  showing  that  the  Baby- 
lonian language  was  at  that  time  not  only  widely  known, 
but  was  the  medium  of  official  communication  between  Egypt 
and  other  countries,  as  French  is  to-day  in  Europe.     The 
letters  reveal  the  wide  political  relations  of  Egypt,  and  are 
particularly  valuable  for  the  light  they  throw  on  the  state  of 
culture  in  Palestine,  and  on  the  events  transpiring  in  that 
country,  about   1400  B.C.     They  include,  as  will  be  after- 
wards seen,3  many  letters  from  the  king  of  Jerusalem  and 
other  rulers  in  Canaan. 

3.  The  third  discovery  is  still  more  recent,  and  bears  on 

1  Cf.  Nicol,  as  above,  p.  320.     The  correction  was  announced  by  Pro- 
fessor Sayce  in  1900. 

2  Good  accounts  of  this  discovery  may  be  seen  in  Sayce's  Higher  Criticism, 
pp.  47  ff. ;  Bennett's  Book  of  Joshua,  pp.  48  ff.  ;  Pinches,  0.  T.  in  Light  of 
Hist.  Records,  chap,  viii.,  etc.     The  most  valuable  complete  translation  is 
Winckler's  (1896). 

3  See  below,  p.  424.     Next  in  importance  to  the  letters  of  the  king  of 
Jerusalem,  in  their  bearings  on  the  Khabiri  (below,  p.  424),  is  the  long  series  of 
Rib-Addi  of  Gebal  (Winckler,  pp.  124  ff.). 


ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    421 

the  question  often  asked — Is  there  any  mention  of  hrnd 
on  the  Egyptian  monuments?  Identifications  with  the 
Hebrews  have  been  repeatedly  sought,  as,  e.g.,  in  the  aperiu 
mentioned  in  some  of  the  inscriptions;1  but  it  was  not 
till  1896  that  the  name  "Israel"  was  actually  found  by 
Professor  Flinders  Petrie  on  a  stela  of  Meneptah,  believed, 
as  above  said,  to  be  the  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus.  The 
inscription  on  the  monument,  however,  it  was  soon  found, 
created  more  difficulties  than  it  removed.  It  recounted 
the  victories  of  Meneptah  over  various  peoples  in  and  about 
Palestine,  and  apparently  included  Israel  in  the  list. 
"  Israel  is  spoiled,"  it  reads,  "  it  hath  no  seed."  *  But  if 
Israel  was  in  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Meneptah — and 
there  seems  independent  evidence  that  at  least  Asher,8  and 
perhaps  Judah,4  was — it  is  clear  that  Meneptah  cannot, 
in  consistency  with  Bible  history,  be  the  Pharaoh  of  the 
Exodus.  This  at  once  raised  a  new  question — Is  the  usual 
assumption  that  Eameses  n.  was  the  oppressor,  and  that 
the  Exodus  took  place  under  Meneptah,  or  later,  a  correct 
one?  The  question  is  one  which  it  is  now  necessary  to 
consider.6 

1  The  objection  to  this  identification  is  that  aperiu  are  still  found,  in 
both  noble  and  servile  positions, '  at  dates  much  later  than  the  Exodus. 
Thus  there  is  mention  of  2083  aperiu  as  settlers  in  noble  positions  in 
Heliopolis  in  the  reign  of  Rameses  HI.,  and  800  aperiu  are  employed 
in  slave  labour  in  the  reign  of  Rameses  IV.  (cf.  Cook,  who  accepts 
tlio  identification  of  Chabas,  Speaker's  Com.  Exodus,  p.  466  ;  Sayce,  Fresh 
Light,  p.  71  ;  Hommel,  Anc.  Heb.  Trad.  p.  259 ;  Driver,  Auth.  and  Arch. 
p.  56).  Or  did  some  colony  of  Israelites  remain  in  Egypt  ?  (fibers,  Durch 
Gosen,  p.  521).  Cook  regards  the  aperiu  of  Rameses  III.  as  also  "captives" 
— ' '  prisoners  of  war. " 

*  There  are  considerable  variations  in  the  translation  given,  but  generally 
the  meaning  is  the  same. 

*  Tims  W.  Max  Miiller,  Asien  und  Europa,  p.  236  ;  cf.  Hommel,  Anc. 
Ifeb.  Trad.  p.  228. 

4  Thus  Jastrow,  who  finds  "men  of  Judah,"  on  the  Tel  el-Amarnu 
tablets  (Jour,  of  Bib.  Lit.  1893).  There  is  another  inscription  of  the 
reign  of  Meneptah  which  speaks  of  Go«hen  as  "abandoned  since  the  time  of 
t  e  ancestors.  Naville  infers  from  this  that  it  was  not  inhabited  ("The 
Route  of  the  Exodus,"  Trans,  of  Viet.  Institute,  voL  xxvi.  1892-93). 

*  For  a  fnller  discussion  of  the  Egyptian  traditions  and  other  ancient 
notices  in  light  of  Professor  Petrie's  discovery,  see  nit.  by  the  author  in 

r,  April  1897,  "Israel  in  Egypt  and  the  Exodus." 


422    ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 


VI.  ISRAEL  AND  THE  EXODUS 

There  have  always  been  scholars  who  doubted  the 
current  theory  of  the  date  of  the  Exodus,1  but,  while  the 
majority,  probably,  still  adhere  to  the  old  date,  the  effect 
of  Professor  Petrie's  discovery  has  been  to  lead  many  to 
revise  their  previous  opinions,2  and  to  create  hesitation  in 
the  minds  of  more.  An  almost  insuperable  difficulty  in  the 
way  of  the  Rameses-Meneptah  theory  is  the  chronological. 
The  steady  tendency  in  Egyptian  study  has  been  to  lower 
the  dates  of  the  Pharaohs  of  the  nineteenth  dynasty. 
Professor  Flinders  Petrie,  e.g.,  puts  the  accession  of  Meneptah 
as  late  as  1208  B.C.,  and  the  Exodus  in  1200  B.C.3  This, 
however,  leaves  little  more  than  200  years  for  the  interval 
between  the  Exodus  and  the  building  of  Solomon's  temple 
(c.  975  B.C.)4 — a  period  into  which  it  is  impossible  to  crush 
the  wanderings  and  conquest,  the  times  of  the  Judges,  and 
the  reigns  of  Saul  and  David.  At  the  other  end,  the 
period  from  Abraham  (c.  2100  B.C.)  to  the  Exodus  is  far  too 
long,  about  900  years — some  make  it  longer.  Even  if  the 
date  of  Barneses  n.  is  raised  by  half  a  century,  the  difficulty 
is  only  very  partially  removed.  •  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we 
a  date  which  the  Bible  itself  gives  us  for  the  Exodus, 

}  viz.,   480   years    before   the   building   of    the    temple,5  as 

^ approximately  correct,  we  are  taken  back  to  about  1450  B.C., 

)just  at  the  close  of  the  reign  of  the  powerful  ruler  Thothmes 

(in.,  of  the  eighteenth  dynasty.6  This  date  corresponds  also 
with  the  interval  from  Abraham.  On  this  view,  the  Exodus 
would  fall  in  the  first  years  of  the  feign  of  Amenophis  u., 

1  Of.  the  interesting  Essay  of  Canon  Cook,  Speaker's  Com.  Exodus,  pp. 
454-55 ;  also  Kohler,  Bib.  Gesch.  i.  pp.  237-45. 

2  Professor  Petrie  himself,   Sayce,   Driver,   Kittel,   etc.,   adhere   to  the 
ordinary  view  ;  but  leading  Continental  scholars,  as  Steindorff,  Zimmern, 
Hommel,  etc.,  with  W.  Max  Mtiller,  Colonel  Conder,  and  others,  incline  to,  or 
adopt,  an  earlier  date.     Hommel,  who  took  the  ordinary  view  in  his  Anc. 
Heb.  Trad.,  gives  the  reasons  for  his  change  in  Expository  Times,  February 
1899. 

*  Hist,  of  Egypt,  i.  pp.  250-51. 

4  This  is  the  date  approximately  fixed  by  the  Assyrian  synchronisms. 

8  1  Kings  vi.  1.     The  LXX  has  440  years.     This  is  found,  however,  in 
none  of  the  remaining  versions.    The   number    480  is  found  in  Aquila, 
Symmachus,  Peshitta,  etc.  (cf.  Kohler,  Bib.  Gesch.  i.  p.  242  ;  ii.  pp.  36,  39). 

9  The  years  of  his  sole   reign  are  given  by  Petrie,  after  Mahler,   as 
1481-1449  v.c.—Hist.  of  Egypt,  ii.  pp.  155-57. 


ARCHAEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    423 

son  of  Thothmes  ill.,  in  whose  reign  Professor  Hommel  now 
also  places  it. 

It  is  next  to  be  observed  that,  on  the  supposition  of  this 
earlier  dute,  the  conditions  are  in  every  way  as  suitable  as  on 
the  Ratiieses  theory — perhaps  more  suitable.  The  argument 
in  favour  of  Rameses  n.  from  the  store  cities  loses  much  of 
its  force  when  we  find  that,  as  might  be  shown  by  examples, 
it  was  a  habit  of  this  monarch  to  appropriate  the  work  and 
monuments  of  his  predecessors,  and  give  his  name  to  them.1 
<  )n  the  other  hypothesis,  the  oppressor  becomes  the  great 
ruler,  conqueror,  and  builder,  Thothmes  in.,  whose  character, 
length  of  reign  (fifty-four  years),  and  oppression  of  his  subjects, 
entirely  corresponds  with  the  description  in  Exodus.2  To 
his  reign  belongs  the  well-known  picture  of  the  brick-making 
by  captives,  so  often  used  to  illustrate  the  bondage  of  the 
Israelites.  If  the  new  hypothesis  is  correct,  it  need  not  be 
a  mere  illustration,  but  may  be  a  picture  of  the  bondage 
itself.  As  in  Exodus,  over  the  slaves  stand  overseers  with 
their  rods,  and  the  words  are  put  into  their  mouths,  "  Be 
not  idle."  s  There  is  another  curious  agreement.  Thothmes 
in.  was  preceded  by  Thothmes  II.,  and  he  by  Thothmes  I., 
whose  daughter  Hatasu  (Hashop)  was  one  of  the  most  re- 
markable women  in  Egyptian  history.  She  was  associated 
with  her  father  in  the  government ;  she  married  her  brother 
Thothmes  n.,  and  shared  his  throne ;  she  was  regent  in  the 
minority  of  Thothmes  ni.  It  is  at  least  a  singular  coinci- 
dence that,  on  the  theory  we  are  expounding,  Moses  must 
have  been  born  just  about  the  time  this  "  bold  and  clever  " 
princess  *  was  rising  into  power.  The  temptation  is  great 
to  connect  ber  with  the  "  Pharaoh's  daughter  "  of  the  story 
in  Exodus.6 

One  other  coincidence  of  much  importance  remains  to 
be  noticed.  This  takes  us  back  to  the  Tel  el-Amarna  tablets. 

1  The  "Cleopatra's  Needle"  on  the  Thames  Embankment,  London,  was 
originally  an  obelisk  of  Thothmes  ill.  ;  Pi-Rnmessu  was  the  rebuilding  of  an 
older  city  ;  this  seems  to  have  been  the  case  also  with  Pithom.  In  this  case 
the  use  of  the  name  Raamses  would  seem  to  show  that  the  narrative  at  least 
is  as  late  as  Rameses  II.  But  it  must  still  be  doubtful  whether  the  Raamses 
of  Ex.  i.  11  is  a  city  built  by  this  king.  See  Note  E. 

1  Ex.  v. 

*  Cf.  Brugsch,  Hist,  of  Eijypt,  i.  pp.  875-76  ;  see  Bnigsch  on  the  whole 
reign. 

*  Ibid.  p.  296  ;  cf.  her  history  in  Petrie,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  ii.  pp.  79-96. 
8  Cf.  Ex.  ii.  5  ff. 


424    ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

These,  as  was  stated,  include  many  letters  from  Palestine, 
and  reveal  an  extraordinary  state  of  things  in  that  country. 
The  land,  especially  in  the  south,  was  overrun  by  a  people 
called  the  Khabiri,  who  had  come  up,  apparently,  from  Seir, 
and  were  carrying  all  before  them.  The  tone  of  all  the 
letters  that  mention  them,  as  Colonel  Conder  says,  "is  a 
despairing  cry  for  help  to  Egypt,  but  none  of  them  record 
that  any  help  was  sent,  though  eagerly  expected.  They 
relate  no  victories  over  the  Khabiri."1  Specially  piteous 
are  the  lamentations  of  Abdi-Khiba,  king  of  Jerusalem. 
"  The  Khabiri  have  devastated  all  the  king's  territory  " — 
"  The  Khabiri  are  occupying  the  king's  cities " — "  There 
remains  not  one  prince  to  my  lord,  the  king ;  every  one  is 
ruined  " — "  If  no  troops  come,  the  whole  territory  of  my  lord, 
the  king,  will  be  lost." 2  This  is  the  reign  of  Amenophis  IV. 
(c.  1380  B.C.),  which  is  seen  ending  in  defeat  and  disaster. 
If,  however,  the  Exodus  is  placed  where  the  new  hypothesis 
suggests,  or  possibly  a  reign  later,  under  Thothmes  iv.  (the 
Thummosis  of  Manetho),  their  invasion  synchronises  very 
closely  with  the  conquest  of  Canaan  by  the  Israelites,  and 
many  leading  scholars,  accordingly,  now  seriously  propose  an 
identification  of  these  Khabiri  with  the  Hebrews.3  The 
subject  is  still  under  discussion,  but  it  is  easy  to  see  how 
interesting  are  the  possibilities  it  opens  up. 

VII.  EMPIRE  OF  THE  HITTITES — PERIOD  OF  THE  KINGS 

It  remains  to  indicate  in  the  briefest  survey  the  light 
cast  by  archaeology  on  the  relations  of  Israel  to  the  great 
powers  with  which,  in  so  many  ways,  it  was  brought  into 
contact,  after  the  settlement  in  Canaan. 

1.  And  first  may  be  mentioned  the  remarkable  corro- 
borations  of  Scripture  in  its  references  to  the  existence  and 

1  Bible  and  the  East,  pp.  40,  41,  106-7. 

2  Cf.  in  Winckler,  letters  179-85  (pp.  303-15).     The  letters  are  also  given 
by  Sayce  in  Early  Israel,  App.  pp.  287  ff.     The  descriptions  in  the  letters 
meet  the  objection  that  the  conquest  could  not  have  taken  place  at  this  time, 
because  Canaan  was  subject  to  Egypt.     If  the  Khabiri  could  iu  this  way 
overrun  Palestine,  certainly  the  Israelites  could  do  so. 

3  Zimmern,   Winckler,   etc. ,    favour   this  identification  ;  Hommel  now 
accepts  it.     One  of  the  best  defences  of  it  is  by  H.  Billet  in  the  Deutsch- 
Evangel.  Blatter,  No.  7.     Professor  Hommel  wrote  the  author  in  February 
1899  :  "I  see  in  them  the  first  onset  (Vorstoss)  of  the  twelve  tribes."     See 
also  Benziuger,  in  Hilprecht's  Explorations,  p.  620. 


ABCRJGOLOGT  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT   425 

power  of  the  Hittites.  In  the  Books  of  Joshua  and  Kings 
are  found  various  references  which  imply  the  existence  of  a 
great  and  formidable  Hittite  empire  or  confederacy  north  of 
Palestine,  and  this  long  after,  as  well  as  before,  the  Israelites 
had  obtained  possession  of  Canaan.  Thus,  in  Joshua  i.  4 : 
"  From  the  wilderness  and  this  Lebanon,  even  unto  the 
great  river,  the  river  Euphrates,  all  the  land  of  the  Hittites." 
In  1  Kings  x.  28,  29,  we  are  told  of  chariots  and  horses 
being  brought  from  Egypt  for  "  all  the  kings  of  the  Hittites." 
Still  later,  in  2  Kings  vii.  6,  we  read  of  a  flight  of  the 
Syrians  occasioned  by  the  belief  that  the  king  of  Israel  had 
hired  against  them  "the  kings  of  the  Hittites  and  the 
kings  of  the  Egyptians."1  As,  however.no  ancient  writer 
knew  anything  about  such  a  power,  these  Scriptural  allusions 
to  them  were,  as  usual,  treated  as  unhistorical,  or  as  mere 
rhetorical  flourishes.  "The  unhistorical  tone,"  wrote  Mr. 
Francis  W.  Newman  in  his  Hebrew  Monarchy,  "  is  far  too 
manifest  to  allow  of  our  easy  belief  in  it "  (the  flight  of  the 
Syrians),  adding  that  the  reference  to  the  Hittites  "does 
not  exhibit  the  writer's  acquaintance  with  the  times  in  a 
very  favourable  light."2  Now,  it  will  hardly  be  disputed 
that  the  statements  of  Scripture  on  this  subject  are  con- 
tinned  to  the  letter.3  Alike  from  Egyptian  and  from 
Assyrian  inscriptions  we  learn  that  this  Hittite  people  were 
for  nearly  1000  years  a  great  ruling  power  in  Syria  and 
Western  Asia,  extending  their  influence  eastwards  as  far  as 
the  Euphrates.  They  had,  in  short,  an  empire  hardly  less 
great  than  Egypt  and  Assyria  themselves.  The  kings  of 
the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  dynasties  in  Egypt  conducted 
extensive  campaigns  against  them,  the  events  of  which 
constitute  a  considerable  part  of  their  annals.4  But  beyond 
this  their  own  abundant  monuments,  inscribed  with  a 
hieroglyphic  which  scholars  are  still  busy  attempting  to 
decipher,  now  discover  to  us  what  manner  of  people  they 
were,  and  testify  to  the  wide  range  of  their  supremacy.  1 1 

1  Cf.  Judg.  i.  26,  "unto  the  land  of  the  Hittitea." 

*  fffb.  Monarchy,  pp.  184-8f>. 

8  Cf.  the  works  of  Sayce  (Fresh  Light,  Hujher  Criticism,  Early  Israel, 
etc.)  :  Wright,  Empire  of  the  Hittites;  Driver,  Authority  and  Archaeology, 
pp.  83-87  ;  Jensen,  in  Hilprecht's  Exploration,  pp.  755  if. 

*  Cf.  the  treaty  of  Ranieses  n.  with  the  Hittiti  s  in  Brugsch  ;  also  in  Saycc, 
Early  Israel,  pp.  297  ff.     The  Hittites  are  prominent  also  in  the  Tel  el- 
Amarna  tablets.     Cf.  Pinches,  as  above,  pp.  306  ff. 


426    ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

is  already  known   that   the   Hittite  language  was  not  a 

Semitic,  but  an  Aryan,  tongue,  and  Jensen  has  thrown  out 

the  conjecture  that  the  Hittites  of  the  monuments  were  the 

ancestors  of  the  modern  Armenians.1     It  seems  evident  that 

._,the  Biblical  books  in  which  these  references  to  the  Hittites 

""  occur  must  have   been  written  when   the  power   of   that 

people  was  yet  in  the  ascendant,  else  the  writers  would  have 

blundered  in  regard  to  them  like  others. 

2.  Space  would  fail  to  tell  of  the  long  series  of  dis- 
coveries minutely  illustrating  and  corroborating  the  narra- 
tives of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
period  of  the  kings.  It  is  a  striking  fact  that  there  is 
hardly  a  single  point  of  contact  with  foreign  powers  in  this 
period  which  does  not  receive  illustration  from  the  monu- 
ments; while  the  Assyrian  synchronisms  and  notices  in 
the  Eponym  Canon2  afford  valuable  aid  in  rectifying  the 
Bible  chronology.  Only  to  glance  at  outstanding  instances — 
the  walls  of  the  Hall  of  Karnak  give  Shishak's  own  boast- 
ful account  of  his  invasion  of  Israel  and  Judah  in  the  time 
of  Eehoboam ; 3  Mesha,  king  of  Moab,  set  up  his  stone  at 
Dibon  to  commemorate  the  freeing  of  his  country  from  the 
yoke  of  Israel ; 4  the  Bible  informs  us  that  Ahab  at  the  end 
of  his  life  made  a  covenant  with  Benhadad  of  Syria,5  and,  on 
the  Assyrian  side,  we  have  a  notice  of  Ahab  as  present  with 
Benhadad  at  the  battle  of  Karkar,  854  B.C.,  when  the 
Syrians  were  defeated  by  Shalmaneser  II. ;  this  apparently 
brought  Israel  under  tribute  to  Assyria,  and  Jehu's  servants 
are  next  pictured  on  Shalmaneser's  black  obelisk  as  bearing 
tribute  to  that  monarch ;  the  relations  of  Israel  and  Judah 
with  Tiglath-pileser,  or  Pul  (shown  by  the  lists  of  kings  to 
be  the  same  person)  are  circumstantially  confirmed; 

1  Jensen,  as  above,  p.  777. 

2  A  list  of  the  rotation  and  succession  of  officers  (analogous  to  the  archons 
of  Athens  and  the  consuls  of  Rome).     Cf.  article  by  the  author  on  "  Assyrian 
and  Hebrew  Chronology  "  in  the  Presbyterian  Review,  January  1899. 

3  2  Chron.  xii.     This  is  one  of  the  narratives  in  Chronicles  not  found  in 
Kings,  and  proves  the  use  of  special  and  authentic  sources. 

4  2  Kings  i.  1  ;  iii.  4  ff.     The  inscription  may  be  seen  in  full  (original  and 
translation,  with  notes)  in  Driver's  Samuel,  pp.  Ixxxv  ff.  ;  and  Bennett's  art. 
"Moab"  in  Diet,  of  Bible,  iii.  pp.  403  ff.     Dr.  Driver  is  clearly  mistaken  in 
making  the  revolt  to  be  already  "completed  in  the  middle  of  the  reign  of 
Ahab,     and  rinding  therein  a  discrepancy  with  Scripture.     Mesha's  "forty 
years"  from  Omri  reach  down  to  .lehoram's  time,  as  in  2  Kings.     Possibly 
lie  is  the  son  of  Omri  intended.     Omri's  own  reign  was  a  short  one. 

6  1  Kings  xx.  34  ;  xxii.  1. 


ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    427 

Menahem,  Pekah,  and  Hoshea  appear  in  this  monarch's 
inscriptions  as  on  the  Bible  page ; 1  Hoshea's  rebellion,  and 
the  carrying  away  of  the  people  by  Sargon,  after  the  fall  of 
Samaria,  are  described ; z  Sargon's  own  palace  was,  as 
formerly  mentioned,  one  of  the  first  Ninevite  discoveries ; 8 
Sennacherib's  version  of  his  expedition  against  Hezekiah, 
his  siege  of  Lachish,  and  the  other  events  of  his  reign,  may 
be  read  from  his  own  annals ;  *  his  murder  by  his  son,  and 
the  accession  of  Esarhaddon,  are  duly  recorded ; 6  Tirhakah 
appears  as  "king  of  Egypt  and  Ethiopia."6 

The  captivity  of  Manasseh,  his  repentance,  and  his 
restoration  to  his  kingdom,  are,  like  the  invasion  of  Shishak, 
recorded  only  in  Chronicles.7  The  narrative  has  very 
generally  been  pronounced  unhistorical  on  the  double  ground, 
apart  from  the  silence  of  the  Book  of  Kings,  that  we  have 
no  mention  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Assyrians  at  this  time 
in  Western  Asia,  and  that  the  king  is  declared  to  have  been 
carried  to  Babylon,  not  to  Nineveh.  Both  objections,  as 
Schrader  shows,  "  lose  their  force  in  presence  of  the  inscrip- 
tions."8 Manasseh's  name  occurs  in  the  list  of  tributaries 
of  both  Esarhaddon  and  Assurbanipal  ("  Manasseh,  king  of 
Judah");9  and,  as  kings  of  Babylon,  the  sovereigns  some- 
times held  their  court  in  that  city.10  The  release  of 
Manasseh  has  a  parallel  in  the  case  of  Pharaoh-Necho.  He 
was  brought  to  Nineveh,  as  Manasseh  was  to  Babylon,  "  in 
iron  chains,"  yet  Assurbanipal,  a  little  later,  allowed  him  to 
return  to  Egypt  and  resume  his  power.11  Schrader  sums  up 
the  results  of  a  careful  examination  by  saying  "  that  there 
is  no  reason  to  cast  any  suspicion  on  the  statement  of  the 
Chronicler,  and  that  what  he  relates  can  be  satisfactorily 

1  2  Kings  xv.  8  2  Kings  xvii.  1-6. 

*  See  above,  p.  398. 

4  2  Kings  xviii.  13  fT.  Sennacherib,  as  was  to  be  expected,  is  silent  about 
the  disaster  to  his  army,  which  yet  is  needed  to  account  for  the  raising  of  the 
siege. 

*'2  Kingsxix.  37. 

r  '2  Kings,  xix.  9.     Of.  Schrader,  Cun.  Inscriptions,  ii.  p.  10. 

I  2  Chron.  xxxlii.  11-13. 

8  Cnn.  Inseripts.  ii.  pp.  54  ff. 

'  Cr.  Pinches,  as  above,  pp.  386-68. 

10  Schrader,  p.  55  ;  Sayee,  Higher  Crit.  pp.  458-60.  Even  H.  P.  Smith 
concedes  :  "  The  mention  of  Babylon  whifh  formerly  made  a  difficulty  does 
so  no  longer,  because  we  know  that  Ashurbanipal  sj>eut  a  great  deal  of  time 
in  that  city. "—0.7*.  Hist.  p.  258. 

II  Sayce,  as  above,  p.  461. 


428    ARCHAEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

accounted  for  from  the  circumstances  that  existed  in  the 
year  647  B.C."  l 

VIII.  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

There  is  something  approaching  to  a  consensus  of 
opinion  among  critical  scholars  that  the  Book  of  Daniel,  as 
it  lies  before  us,  is  a  production  of  the  Maccabaean  age ;  only 
that,  while  a  majority  will  have  it  to  be  composed  wholly  in 
that  age,  others,  like  Delitzsch  and  Orelli,2  think  that  it 
rests  on  a  basis  of  genuine  history  and  prophecy,  and  is  at 
most  revised,  and  adapted  to  the  circumstances  of  the 
Maccabsean  age,  as  a  book  of  comfort  to  the  confessors  and 
martyrs  in  their  persecution.3  Without  entering  into  the 
critical  question,  we  would  point  out  that  the  sweeping 
statements  often  made  as  to  the  unhistorical  character  of 
the  book  need  to  be  received  with  great  caution.  With  the 
progress  of  monumental  discovery,  the  objections  that  have 
been  heaped  up  against  it  tend,  not  to  increase,  but  to 
disappear.  The  startling  evidence,  e.g.,  that  has  come  to 
light  of  the  early  date  and  wide  diffusion  of  a  high  Greek 
civilisation,  and  of  the  continuous  intercourse  of  the  Greeks 
with  other  countries  from  remote  times,4  renders  nugatory 
any  objection  based  on  the  alleged  names  of  Greek  instru- 
ments in  the  account  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  music.  Readers 

1  Gun.  Inscripts.  ii.  p.  59  ;  cf.  Sayce,  Early  Israel,  pp.  xvii  ff. 

2  Cf.  Delitzsch,  Mess.  Prophecies  (1891),  pp.  298  ff. ;  Orelli,  O.T.  Prophecy, 
pp.  454  ff. 

•The  view  in  question  is  stated  thus  by  Orelli:  "Neither  of  the 
narratives  of  Dan.  i.-vi.,  nor  of  the  visions  vii.-xii.,  can  we  allow  that  they  owe 
their  origin  to  the  Maccabaean  age.  As  to  the  former,  we  are  of  opinion  that 
they  contain  history  handed  down  from  the  time  of  the  exile,  and  were  merely 
compiled  by  a  late  author,  who  to  all  appearance,  especially  according  to 
linguistic  indications,  belonged  to  the  Maccabaean  age.  We  come  to  a 
similar  conclusion  in  respect  to  the  apocalyptic  visions.  .  .  .  We  think  that 
even  here  traditional  visions  of  the  real  Daniel,  renowned  for  his  prophetic 
keenness  of  sight  (Ezek.  xxviii.  3)  form  the  real  kernel,  but  that  these 
visions  were  not  merely  collected  and  redacted  by  an  author  living  under 
Antiochus,  but  also  set  by  illustrative  explanations  in  intimate  relation  to 
the  oppression  of  that  age." — PropJiccy,  pp.  455-56.  See  further  below, 
p.  458. 

4  Active  intercourse  existed  between  Greece  and  Egypt,  Canaan,  and 
other  lands,  from  the  Telel-Amarna  times,  and  even  earlier.  The  pottery 
found  at  Mycenae  is  said  to  belong  to  the  age  of  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth 
dynasties  of  Egypt ;  conversely,  Flinders  Petrie  found  Mycenaean  pottery 
at  Tel  el-Amarna.  The  tablets  already  mention  Tivana  or  Javan.  Cf. 
Sayce,  Higher  Criticism,  pp.  18-20  ;  Kittel,  Bib.  Excavs.  pp.  14-18,  etc. 


ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    429 

of  Professor  Flinders  Petrie's  Ten  Years'  Digging  in  Egypt 
may  think  they  find,  in  connection  with  the  discoveries  at 
Tahpahnes,1  what  seems  a  sufficient  answer  to  that  objection. 
The  picture  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  again,  given  in  the  book,  is 
in  fullest  accord  with  the  idea  of  him  obtained  from  his  own 
inscriptions  and  works.  It  must  at  least  be  allowed  that 
discovery  has  proved  the  historical  reality  of  one  personage 
whom  criticism  had  persisted  in  regarding  as  mythical,  viz., 
Belshazzar.  Belshazzar  appears  in  Daniel  as  "  king  of  the 
Chaldeans,"2  but  his  name  is  not  found  in  any  ancient 
liistorian.  The  last  king  of  Babylon  was  called  Nabonidus, 
and  no  room  seemed  left  for  another.  It  is  now  discovered, 
however,  from  inscriptions  and  contract  tablets,  that 
Nabonidus  had  a  son  who  bore  this  name  Belshazzar,  and 
who,  to  judge  from  the  prominent  place  he  has  in  tha 
inscriptions,  was  in  some  way  associated  with  his  father  in 
the  government.8  This  would  explain  Belshazzar's  promise 
to  make  Daniel  the  third  ruler  in  the  kingdom,  or,  as  some 
understand  it,  one  of  "  a  board  of  three."  *  It  would  seem, 
further,  from  the  Babylonian  account,  that  "  the  king's  son 
died  "  on  the  night  in  which  the  city  was  finally  captured.5 
In  other  respects  discrepancies  are  alleged  to  exist  between 
the  account  of  the  taking  of  the  city  in  the  inscriptions  of 
Cyrus  and  the  statements  in  Daniel.  We  are  confident  that 
most  of  these  will  disappear  with  more  accurate  reading  and 
interpretation.  In  the  Babylonian  account  the  city  is 
described  as  taken  "without  fighting."  It  is,  however, 
carefully  to  be  noted  that  in  the  Chronicle  a  considerable 
interval  elapses  between  the  first  peaceful  entrance  into  the 

1  Ten  Yean'  Digging,  pp.  54  ff. :  "  Here  then  was  a  ready  source  for  the 
introduction  of  Greek  words  and  names  into  Hebrew,  long  before  the 
Alexandrine  age  ;  and  even  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  the  Greek  names  of 
musical  instruments  and  other  words  may  have  been  heard  in  the  courts  of 
Solomon's  temple  "  (p.  54).  Cf.  Professor  Petrie's  Tunis,  Pt.  ii.  pp.  49,  50 
(4th  Mem.  of  Pal.  Exnlor.  Fund).  Dr.  Cheyue  takes  Professor  Petrie  to 
task  for  accounting  in  this  way  for  the  Greek  names  of  instruments  in  Daniel 
(Origin  of  Psalter,  p.  10). 

s  Dan.  v.  30. 

*  Cf.  Pinches,  p.  414.     According  to  Dr.  Pinches,  Belshazzar  was  "the 
real  ruler,"  but  not  so  officially.     Professor  R.  D.  Wilson,  of  Princeton,  who 
has  made  a  special  study  of  the  royal  titles  of  this  period,  claims  that  the 
bearing  of  the  title  "king"  by  Belshazzar  is  in  harmony  with  the  usage  of 
the  time.     See  Note  F  on  Belshazzar  and  Babylon. 

4  Dan.  v.  7. 

•  Cf.  the  "Babylonian  Chronicle, "given in  Pinches,  pp.  415-16  ;  Driver, 
Daniel,  p.  xxix-xxx  ;  Sayce,  Higher  Crit.  pp.  502-8. 


430    ARCHEOLOGY  AND  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

city  and  its  final  fall.  The  first  entrance  is  made  in  the 
month  Tammuz  (July),  but  the  completion  of  the  capture, 
and  the  death  of  Belshazzar,  do  not  take  place  till 
Marcheswan  (November) — four  months  later.1  The  pro- 
'  babilities  are  that  Nabonidus  commanded  the  forces  in  the 
field,  while  Belshazzar  held  the  city  within.  Nabonidus 
was  defeated,  and  taken  captive  in  Babylon,  and,  as  we  read 
it,  the  outer  part  of  the  city  fell  into  the  hands  of  Gobryas, 
the  general  of  Cyrus,  and  his  soldiers.  The  inner  part, 
however,  held  out  for  some  months,  when  Cyrus,  in  some 
unknown  way,  became  master  of  it.2  Belshazzar  was  slain 
on  the  night  of  its  capture — again  in  agreement  with  Daniel. 
Not  improbably,  also,  the  Gobryas  of  the  inscriptions,  whom, 
we  are  told,  Cyrus  made  governor,  and  who  "appointed 
governors  in  Babylonia,"  is  the  long-sought-for  "  Darius  the 
Mede,"  who  "  received  the  kingdom,"  and  reigned  for  two 
years.8 

NOTE. — The  Sabbath :  The  strongest  reason  for  doubting 
that  the  Babylonian  Sabbath  was  a  day  of  general  rest 
(cf.  pp.  403-4)  is  furnished  by  Professor  E.  D.  Wilson,  in  an 
art.  on  "  Babylon  and  Israel "  in  The  Princeton  Theol. 
Revieiv  for  April  1903.  Dr.  Wilson  shows,  on  the  basis  of 
a  large  induction,  that  contracts  were  freely  drawn  up  on 
the  Sabbaths  as  on  other  days.  Cf.  also  Kb'nig's  Die  Babel- 
Bibel-Frage,  p.  22. 

1  See  the  Babylonian  Chronicle,  as  above. 

*  Cf.  Pinches,  p.  418  ;  Driver,  Daniel,  p.  xxxi.  In  a  very  important 
note  (Higher  Crit.  p.  522)  Sayce  shows  that  contracts  in  Babylon  continued 
to  be  dated  by  the  year  of  "  Nabonidus  king  of  Babylon  "  after  the  capture 
in  July  up  to  November.  These  are  noted  as  drawn  up  in  "the  city  of  the 
king's  palace,  Babylon,"  while  one  dated  in  December  "in  the  accession 
year  of  Cyrus  "  is  simply  inscribed  "  Babylon." 

8  Gobryas  had  already  been  described  as  "governor  of  Gutium."  The 
remarks  of  Prof.  R.  D.  Wilson  on  the  use  of  the  title  "king"  apply  to 
Darius  also.  See,  on  whole  subject,  the  valuable  note  of  Kb'hler  in  Bib. 
Gesch.  iii.  pp.  535-41. 


CHAPTER  XII 

psalms  ant)  propbcts :  Cbc  protjrcssiveness  of 
IRcvelation 


431 


"How  varied  and  how  splendid  the  wealth  which  this  treasury  [the 
Psalter]  contains,  it  is  difficult  to  describe  in  words.  .  .  .  This  Book,  not 
unreasonably,  I  am  wont  to  style  an  anatomy  of  all  parts  of  the  soul,  for  no 
one  will  discover  in  himself  a  single  feeling  whereof  the  image  is  not 
reflected  in  this  mirror." — CALVIK. 

"After  busying  myself  with  the  Old  Testament  in  its  original  text 
for  over  forty-eight  years,  I  can  bear  witness  with  fullest  truth,  that  what- 
ever cleaves  to  the  Old  Testament  of  imperfection,  yea,  perhaps,  of  offence, 
in  a  word,  of  '  the  form  of  a  servant, '  has  from  year  to  year  for  me  ever  the 
more  shrivelled  up  into  nothingness,  with  an  ever  deepening  penetration 
into  the  overmastering  phenomenon  of  prophecy." — KATJTZSCH. 

"Kuenen  has  designated  his  investigation  of  prophecy  strictly  im- 
partial ;  but  it  is  not  to  be  mistaken  that  his  arrangement  is  controlled  by 
the  motive  of  reducing  faith  in  a  divine  inspiration  of  the  prophets  to 
absurdity. " — GIESEBRECHT. 

"When  I  come  to  such  psalms  wherein  David  curseth  his  enemies,  oh  ! 
then  let  me  bring  my  soul  down  to  a  lower  note,  for  these  words  were  made 
only  to  fit  David's  mouth." — THOMAS  FULLER. 

"  It  is  evident,  then,  that  a  progressive  revelation — if  the  idea  of  such 
a  revelation  is  once  admitted — must  be  judged  by  its  end  and  not  by  its 
beginning.  .  .  .  According  to  any  rule  of  judging  in  such  cases,  the 
morality  of  a  progressive  dispensation  is  not  the  morality  with  which  it 
starts,  but  that  with  which  it  concludes.  The  test  is  not  the  commencement, 
but  the  result."— MOZLEY. 


CHAPTER  XII 

PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS :  THE  PROGRESSIVENESS 
OF  REVELATION 

IF  the  history  is  the  body  of  the  Old  Testament  religion, 
the  psalms  and  prophets  may  be  said  to  be  its  soul.  It  is 
not  our  purpose  in  this  concluding  chapter  to  enter  upon  a 
full  discussion  of  either  the  Psalter  or  prophecy.  It  will 
be  enough  to  confine  attention  to  two  problems  in  regard 
to  these — first,  the  place  of  the  psalms  in  the  history  of 
revelation,  and  specially  their  connection  with  David ; l  and 
second,  the  place  and  function  of  the  predictive  element  in 
prophecy,  with  certain  canons  of  interpretation  which  arise 
out  of  the  consideration  of  that  subject.  Our  discussion 
may  then  close  with  some  reflections  on  the  progressiveness 
of  revelation,  in  its  bearings  on  what  are  called  the  "mornl 
difficulties  "  of  the  Old  Testament. 


PART  I 

DAVID  AND  THE  PSALTEB 

In  one  point  of  view,  the  spiritual  teaching  of  the 
Psalter — its  power  of  help  and  inspiration — is  indepen- 
dent of  any  views  we  may  form  as  to  the  place  and  time  of 
its  origin.  The  psalms  by  which  our  faith  and  hope  are 
nourished  are  the  same,  whoever  were  their  authors,  or  in 
whatever  age  they  were  composed.  They  deal  with 
relations  of  the  soul  to  God  which  are  above  time,  or  are 
the  same  in  all  time ;  and  if,  instead  of  being  largely  pre- 
exilian,  as  has  been  commonly  supposed,  all  of  them  were 
proved  to  be  post-exilian,  they  would  not  lose  a  jot  of  their 
1  On  the  structure  of  the  Psalter,  see  above,  pp.  197,  227. 
28 


434  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

essential  spiritual  value.  Yet  the  question  of  the  age  of 
the  psalms  is,  in  another  respect,  far  from  being  one  to 
which  we  can  afford  to  be  indifferent.  The  psalms  are 
lamps  brightly  illuminating  the  religious  conditions  of  the 
age  in  which  they  had  their  origin:  and  if  any  of  them 
belong  to  the  pre-exilian  age,  their  aid  is  of  the  first 
importance  in  determining  the  real  character  of  the  religion 
of  that  age.  It  is  this,  in  fact,  which  makes  it  necessary  for 
the  newer  criticism  to  put  the  psalms  down  into  the  post- 
exilian  period.  Their  earlier  existence  will  not  harmonise 
with  the  views  put  forth  as  to  the  stages  of  the  religious 
development.  If  even  eight  or  ten  of  the  psalms  be  allowed 
to  David,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  critical 
hypothesis  of  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen  —  at  least  their 
theory  of  the  religion — is  blown  into  the  air.  It  is  part  of 
our  problem,  therefore,  to  inquire  what  the  truth  is  in  this 
matter.1 

I.  THEORY  OF  THE  POST-EXILIAN  ORIGIN  OF  THE  PSALTER 

It  has  now  become  almost  a  dogma  in  the  Wellhausen 
'school  that  the  Psalter  is  wholly,  or  with  minute  and 
doubtful  exception,  post-exilian  in  origin.  Wellhausen  lays 
it  down  that,  "  as  the  Psalter  belongs  to  the  Hagiographa, 
and  is  the  hymn-book  of  the  Church  of  the  second  temple  .  .  . 
the  question  is  not  whether  it  contains  any  post-exilian 
psalms,  but  whether  it  contains  any  that  are  pre-exilian."  2 
This  question  he  answers  for  himself  in  the  negative.  The 
.psalms,  he  says,  are  "altogether  the  fruit"  of  the  post- 
exilian  period.3  Eeuss  had  preceded  him  in  this  judgment ; 
and  Stade,  Duhm,  Cheyne,  and  the  greater  number  of  this 

1  Delitzsch  observes :  "  Schultz,  in  his  Alttest.  Theol.  (2nd  edit.  1878), 
acknowledges  at  least  ten  psalms  as  Davidic.  The  consequences  which  follow 
for  the  reconstruction  of  the  history  of  Israel  from  the  recognition,  whether 
it  he  of  ten  or  more  genuine  Davidic  psalms,  are  so  important,  that  the 
endeavour  of  some  recent  writers  to  bring  down  all  the  psalms  to  the  time 
after  the  exile  is  comprehensible  as  an  attempt  to  paralyse  these  conse- 
quences."— Com.  on  Psalms,  i.  p.  11.  With  his  later  change  of  critical 
standpoint,  Schultz  gave  up  even  the  ten  psalms,  and  concluded  "that 
perhaps  only  Ps.  xviii.  can  be  ascribed  to  David  with  any  thing  like  absolute 
certainty." — 0.  T.  Theol.  i.  p.  64.  We  shall  see,  however,  that  much  lies 
even  in  the  admission  of  Ps.  xviii.  ;  it,  too,  accordingly,  is  now  generally 
denied  to  David.  See  below,  p.  446. 

3  Wellhausen's  Bleek,  Einleit.,  (1876),  p.  507;  Psalms  ("Poly.  Bib."), 
p.  163.  3  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  501. 


THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    435 

school,  echo  the  opinion.1  A  more  moderate  position  is 
taken  by  Dr.  Driver,  who  allows  that  several  of  the  psalms 
— especially  those  which  allude  to  the  king — may  be  pre- 
sumed to  be  pre-exilian ;  but  thinks  that  "  very  few  of  the 
psalms  are  earlier  than  the  eighth  century  B.c."2  Well- 
hausen's  opinion  of  the  psalms,  it  may  be  observed,  is  not  a 
high  one.  In  one  of  his  latest  works  he  says:  "There  is 
nothing  analogous  to  the  psalms  in  pre-exilian  times. 
They  are  prayers  of  quite  another  kind  from  those  known 
to  antiquity :  they  rest  on  the  despair  of  Jeremiah  and  the 
confidence  of  the  Great  Anonymous  "  (Isa.  xL  ff.).  And  in  a 
note :  "  They  certainly  are  only  to  the  smallest  extent 
original ;  are  for  the  most  part  imitations,  which  illustrate 
the  saying  about  much  writing:  often  they  are  not  real 
prayers  at  all,  but  sermons,  and  even  narratives  in  the  form 
of  prayers.  One  sees  how  prayer  becomes  an  art  and 
species  of  literature."  8 

On  this  theory  we  remark : 

1.  This  dictum,  that  the  psalms  are  all,  or  mostly,  of 
post-exilian  date,  neither  is,  nor  can  be,  proved.  There  are, 
no  one  doubts,  post-exilian  psalms ;  *  it  is  an  open  question 
whether  there  are  not  a  few  Maccabsean  psalms.6  Calvin 
admitted  the  possibility  of  such,  and,  till  recently,  opinion 
was  divided  on  the  subject — to  some  extent  is  so  still — 
generally,  however,  with  a  leaning  to  denial.8  But  only  an 

1  For  the  history  of  opinion  on  the  psalms,  see  Robertson,  Poetry  and 
Religion  of  the  Psalms,  pp.  40  ff.  ;  Kirkpatrick,  The  Psalms,  pp.  xxxvii  ff.  ; 
Raethgen,  Cheyne,  etc.  Reuss  says  we  have  "no  decisive  proofs  of  psalms  of 
the  period  of  the  kingdom  (Qtschicht.  d.  Heil.  Schriften,  p.  366  ;  cf.  p.  197). 
Duhm  denies  that  a  single  psalm  is  pre-exilian.  The  discussions  of  W.  R. 
Smith  (O.T.  in  J.  C.,  1st  edit.  pp.  197  ff.)  and  of  Driver  (Introd.  pp.  873  ff.) 
are  unfavourable  to  the  positive  ascription  of  any  psalms  to  David  :  in  his  2nd 
edit.  W.  R.  Smith  discards  Davidic  psalms  altogether,  and  makes  the  whole 
Psalter,  with  slight  exception  (p.  220),  post-exilian  (cf.  pp.  218-25). 

J  Introd.  p.  384. 

•  Israel,  und  Jud.  Gcschichte  (1897),  p.  197. 

4  Such,  e.q., manifestly  (exilian  or  post-exilian)  are  Pss.  cii.,  cxxiv.,  cxxvi., 
cxxxvii.,  and  others  in  the  4th  and  5th  Books  of  the  Psalter. 

8  The  most  striking  of  the  psalms  claimed  for  this  period  are  Pss.  xliv., 
Ixxiv.,  Ixxix. 

*  Hitzig  and  Olsliausen  were  the  main  advocates  of  Maccabrean  psalms  : 
Gesenius,  Hupfeld,  Ewald,  Bleek,  Dillmann,  etc.,  refused  to  acknowledge 
them:  so  Hengstcnberg,  Hiivernick,  Keil  (cf.  Delitzsch,  Psalms,  i.  p.  15): 
Delitzsch  admits  the  possibility.     Bleek  (Introd.  ii.   p.  239)  and  Dillmann 
(Jahr.  d.  dcutsch.  Theol.  iii.  pp.  460-62)  hold  that  there  is  no  good  ground 
for  placing  any  psalm  later  than  Nehemiah's  age.     Of  more  recent  writers, 
Duhm,  Baethgen  (Psalmcn,  p.  xxviii),  Kirkpatrick,  etc.,  reject  Maccabiean 


436  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

anti-traditional  bias,  combined  with  assumptions  as  to  the 
line  of  development  of  Israel's  religion,  can  claim  to  regard 
it  as  established  that  all,  or  even  the  bulk  of,  the  psalms 
are  post-exilian  compositions.  Grant  all  that,  is  said  of  the 
untrustworthiness  of  the  titles,  and  of  the  difficulty  of 
proving  that  a  single  psalm  is  from  the  pen  of  David — a 
( point  to  which  we  shall  return  later, — the  assumption  of 
Davidic  psalms  has  at  least  behind  it  a  firmly-fixed  Jewish 
tradition,  dating  from  times  when  the  Canon  was  still  in 
process  of  formation :  the  assertion  that  none — or  hardly 
any — of  the  psalms  are  pre-exilian  has  neither  documentary 
nor  traditional  support,  and  is  not  borne  out  by  considera- 
tions of  internal  probability.  As  a  question  of  evidence, 
everything  that  is  urged  as  to  the  impossibility  of  proving 
that  David  wrote  any  of  the  psalms  can  be  retorted  with 
equal  force  against  the  unsupported  assertion  that  the 
psalms  in  question  are  post-exilian. 

2.  In  judging  of  the  assertions  frequently  made  as  to 
the  marvellous  literary  productivity  of  the  post-exilian  age, 
it  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  greater  part  of  that 
period  is  an  absolute  blank  to  our  knowledge.  This  is 
hardly  always  realised  as  it  should  be.  We  speak  of  the 
"connection"  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  but  it  is 
really  riot  in  our  power,  up  to  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  to 
write  a  history  of  the  period  after  the  return  at  all.  There 
is  "  a  great  gap "  from  Nehemiah  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
i.e.,  from  400  B.C.  to  175  B.C.,  which  even  Josephus  can  fill 
up  with  only  a  few  legendary  notices.1  Of  the  century 
between  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  (465-325  B.C.),  Josephus 
chronicles  nothing,  and  his  history  is  in  great  confusion 
otherwise.  What  we  do  know  is  that,  from  the  time  of 
Ezra,  the  nation  set  before  itself  as  its  religious  ideal  the 
strict  and  conscientious  observance  of  the  law  of  Moses. 
Hence  the  development  of  the  order  of  the  scribes,  and  the 
legalistic  stamp  on  the  piety  of  later  Judaism.  When  the 
curtain  lifts  again  in  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  we 

psalms.  See  the  grounds  clearly  stated  in  Kirkpatrick,  Psalms,  pp.  xliv  ff. 
Professor  W.  E.  Smith  reasons  against  Maccabsean  psalms  in  Books  I.-IIL 
of  the  Psalter  (O.T.  in  J.  C.,  pp.  207,  437  ff.),  but  finds  some  in  later  Books 
(p.  211). 

1  Of.  Schiirer,  Hist,  of  Jewish  People,  i.  p.  86.  Professor  W.  E.  Smith 
says :  "It  must  be  admitted  that  we  know  but  little  of  the  history  after  the 
time  of  Nehemiah." — 0.  T.  in  J.  C. 


THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    437 

find  ourselves  in  a  new  atmosphere  of  Hellenism,  and  the 
three  parties  of  historical  note — the  Pharisees,  the  Sadducees, 
;tnd  the  Essenes — are,  in  germ  at  least,  already  in  existence.1 
This  age  of  stiffening  legalism,  of  priestly  ascendency,  of 
scribism,  of  cessation  of  the  prophetic  spirit,  is  not  that  to 
which  we  should  naturally  look  for  the  creation  of  such  a 
book  as  our  present  Psalter.  Our  very  ignorance  about  it, 
no  doubt,  makes  the  period  a  convenient  receptacle  for  all 
sorts  of  critical  hypotheses ; 2  but  it  cannot  be  too  strongly 
borne  in  remembrance  that  these  hypotheses  rest,  for  the 
most  part,  on  unverifiable  conjecture.  When,  e.g.,  Professor 
Bennett  says :  "  The  exilic,  Persian,  and  Greek  periods  were 
specially  rich  in  psalms,"  8  he  makes  a  statement  which  he 
no  doubt  believes  to  be  true,  but  for  which  there  is  no 
historical  evidence.  When,  again,  Professor  Cheyne  writes 
of  "  the  time  when  the  temple  with  its  music  was  reorganised 
and  the  Psalter  re-edited  by  Simon,"4  he  must  be  aware, 
indeed  elsewhere  admits,5  that  history  knows  nothing  of 
such  transactions.  They  are  simply  imaginations  of  his 
own,  transformed  into  facts. 

3.  It  must  appear  strange,  surely,  that  an  age  assumed 
to  be  one  of  such  extraordinary  literary  activity  should 
have  left,  among  its  numerous  products,  no  record  of  itself. 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  wrote  of  their  own  times ;  the  Chronicler 
recalled  and  glorified  the  past ;  but  not  a  pen,  apparently, 
was  found,  after  Nehemiah,  to  record  contemporary  events. 
Does  this  look  like  a  golden  age  of  psalmody  ?  That  the 
return  from  captivity  should  give  rise  to  a  group  of  psalms, 
celebrating  that  great  event,  is  only  what  might  be  expected. 
But  the  post-exilian  psalms,  for  the  most  part,  are  easily 
recognised,  and  they  constitute  a  relatively  small  portion  of 
the  Psalter.  The  great  majority  of  the  psalms — especially 
those  in  the  earlier  books — have  nothing  peculiarly  post- 
exilian  about  them.  They  are  written  in  pure  and  vigorous 

1  Joseph  us  mentions  the  three  parties  as  in  existence  in  the  time  of 
Jonathan  the  ilaccabee,  about  150  B.C.  (Ant.  xiii.  5.  9).  The  Pharisees  are 
no  doubt  correctly  identified  with  the  Assidaeans  (Chasidim)  of  1  Mace.  ii. 
42  ;  viL  12  ff.  Of.  Schurer,  Hist,  of  JewisJi.  People  (Div.  ii.),  ii.  pp.  26  ff. 

J  In  one  of  the  last  conversations  the  writer  had  with  the  late  A.  B. 
Davidson,  he  commented  in  his  pungent  way  on  the  use  made  of  this  blank 
period.  "A  free  coup,"  he  said,  using  the  Scotch  phrase  applied  to  places 
granted  for  the  free  emptying  of  rubbish* 

8  Primer,  p.  100. 

4  Origin  of  Psalter  p.  458.  •  Hid.  p.  11. 


433  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

Hebrew.1  They  are  personal  and  spiritual  in  tone,  touching 
the  deepest  and  most  universal  chords  in  religious 
experience.  They  show  no  traces  of  post-exilian  legalism,  or 
of  the  ideas  of  the  Priestly  Code.  On  the  other  hand,  many 
of  the  psalms  suit  admirably  the  conditions  of  an  earlier 
time,  where  they  do  not  contain  features  which  necessitate, 
or  at  least  are  most  naturally  explained  by,  a  pre-exilian 
date.  Such,  especially,  is  the  not  inconsiderable  series  of 
psalms  that  make  mention  of  the  "king,"2  which  cannot 
be  brought  down  to  a  post-exilian  time  without  extreme 
forcing.  Such,  to  our  mind,  are  those  that  contain  allusions 
to  the  "  tabernacle  "  (tent),3  to  the  ark  and  cherubim,4  to  the 
temple  as  a  centre  of  national  worship,6  to  conquests  of  sur- 
rounding peoples,6  and  the  like.  In  a  few  of  the  later  psalms  we 
find  such  expressions  used  of  Jehovah  as  "  among  the  gods," 
"  above  the  gods,"  "  God  of  gods,"  "  before  the  gods,"  7  which 
is  not  what,  on  the  newer  theory,  we  naturally  look  for  from 
the  strict  monotheism  of  post-exilian  times.  Alternatively, 
will  the  critics  grant  us  that  the  use  of  such  expressions 
does  not  imply,  as  is  sometimes  argued  for  pre-exilian  times, 
that  monotheism  is  not  yet  reached  ? 

4.  This  raises  the  larger  question  of  the  general  history 
of  psalmody  and  of  the  connection  of  psalmody  with  David. 
We  touch  briefly  on  psalm-collection  after,8  and  meanwhile 
look  only  at  the  indications  of  pre-exilian  psalmody,  and  at 
%the  Davidic  tradition.  Lyric  poetry,  as  Delitzsch  reminds 
us,9  is  of  very  early  date  in  Israel.  When,  in  addition,  one 

1  Some  psalms,  as  Ps.    cxxxix.,  bear  marks  of  lateness,  but  most  are 
written,  as  Reuss  admits,  in  good,  pure,  classical  Hebrew.     Cf.  Eobertson, 
Psalms,  p.  64. 

2  Such  are  Pss.  ii.,  xviii.,  xx.,  xxi.,  xxviii.,  xxxiii.,  xlv.,  Ixi.,  Ixiii., 
Ixxii.,  ci.,   ex.     Dr.  Cheyne's  attempt  to  explain   these  psalms  from  the 
Maccabsean  or  Greek  age  (Judas,  Simon,  Ptolemy  Philadelphus),  is  justly 
characterised  by  Baethgen  as  "a  complete  failure."     Cf.  his  Psalmen,  pp. 
xxiv-xxv. 

8  See  below,  p.  447. 

4  Pss.  Ixxx.  1  ;  xcix.  1  ;  cxxxii.  8.  As  there  was  no  ark  in  the  second 
temple,  it  seems  most  natural  (though  "cherubim"  might  refer  to  the 
heavenly  temple)  to  regard  these  psalms  as  pre-exilian.  Cf.  Delitzsch  and 
Perowne,  in  loc. 

8  E.g.,  Pss.  xlvi.,  xlviii.,  Ixxxiv.  6  E.g.,  Ps.  Ix.  6  ff. 

7 Pss.  Ixxxvi.  8  ;  cxxxv.  5  ;  cxxxvi.  2  ;  cxxxviii.  1.  The  "liturgical" 
character  of  these  psalms  does  not  necessarily  prove  them  "post-exilian," 
but  some  of  them  appear  made  up  from  earlier  passages,  and  may  reasonably 
be  regarded  on  that  account  as  late. 

8  See  below,  p.  448.  9  Psalms,  i.  p.  9. 


THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF  REN  ELATION    439 

remembers  the  deep  religious  foundations  on  which  the  life 
of  Israel  as  a  nation  rested,  the  signal  manifestations  of 
God's  presence  and  power  in  its  history,1  and  the  powerful 
workings  of  His  Spirit  in  individuals  and  in  the  community 
in  other  directions,  it  is  a  priori  to  be  expected  that  sacred 
hymnody  would  not  be  lacking  in  the  public  and  private 
worship  of  pre-exilian  times.  That  religious  song  and  music 
did  exist  under  the  old  temple  seems  abundantly  attested 
by  the  place  given  to  "  singers "  in  the  narratives  of  the 
return,2  and  by  what  is  said  of  their  functions,3  and  is 
fuither  directly  evidenced  by  the  taunt  addressed  to  the 
exiles  at  Babylon  by  their  captors  to  sing  to  them  "  the 
songs  of  Zion  " — "  Jehovah's  songs."  4  Express  reference 
is  made  to  the  praises  of  the  first  temple  in  Isa.  Ixiv.  11  : 
"  Our  holy  and  beautiful  house,  where  our  fathers  praised 
Thee "  (cf.  chap.  xxx.  29).  In  regard  to  particular  psalms, 
Professor  W.  R.  Smith  allows  that  Ps.  viiL  is  the  foundation  of 
Job's  question  in  chap.  vii.  17, 18  ; 6  and  there  is  what  seems 
to  be  a  clear  quotation  of  Ps.  i. — by  no  means  one  of  the 
earliest  of  the  psalms,  and  apparently  the  preface  to  a 
collection  of  Davidic  psalms — in  Jer.  xvii  8.6  It  has  been 
seen  that  many  other  psalms — e.g.,  those  relating  to  the 
king — can  only  be  put  in  pre-exilian  times :  even  Prof.  W.  K. 
Smith  admits  this  of  Pss.  xx.,  xxL7  Pre-exilian  psalmody  is 
thus  established;  and  that  a  firm  and  constant  tradition 
traced  back  the  beginnings  of  this  psalm-composition  to 
David — "  the  sweet  psalmist  of  Israel "  8 — is  not  less  evident 
from  the  ascription  of  so  large  a  body  of  psalms  to  David 
by  their  titles,*  and  from  the  fact  that  in  Chronicles  the 

1  Tliis  argument  is  admirably  worked  oat  in  detail  by  Professor  Robertson 
in  liis  Poetry  and  Religion  of  the  Psalms,  chape,  vii.,  viii. 

1  Ezra  u.  41,  65  ;  vii.  7,  24  ;  Neh.  x.  28,  29. 

1  Ezia  iii.  10,  11  ;  Neh.  xi.  22,  23  ;  xii.  45-47. 

4  Ps.  cxxxvii.  3,  4.  •  0.  T.  in  J.  C.,  p.  220. 

'  See  below,  p.  450.  The  alternative  suppositions  that  the  psalm  is  based 
on  this  passage  in  Jeremiah,  or  that  both  have  a  common  source,  have  little 
probability.  "  It  is  the  custom  of  Jeremiah,"  says  Delitzsch,  "  to  reproduce 
predictions  of  his  predecessors,  and  more  especially  expressions  found  in  the 
psalms,  in  the  flow  of  his  own  discourse,  and  to  transform  their  style  into 
liisown." — Psalms,  i.  Cf.  Perowne,  i.  p.  106  ;  Kirkpatrick,  p.  1  ;  Baethgen, 
p.  1.  See  also  Ezek.  xlvii.  12. 

7  A»  above.  •  2  Sam.  xxiii.  i. 

•  The  whole  of  Book  I.  of  the  Psalter  is  ascribed  to  David,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Pas.  i.  and  ii.  (preparatory),  x.  (part  of  ix.),  and  xxxiii.  ("the  first 
book,  therefore,  U  a  formal  collection  of  psalms  ascribed  to  David." — W.  R. 


440  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

whole  organisation  of  the  service  of  song  and  music  in  the 
sanctuary  is  traced  back  to  him.1  It  is  futile,  as  was 
formerly  seen,  to  dismiss  such  statements  as  mere  inventions 
of  the  Chronicler.2  That  writer  must  be  presumed  to  be 
drawing  in  good  faith  from  older  sources,  and  to  be  express- 
ing what,  at  the  time  when  these  sources  were  composed, 
was  well-established  belief.  Such  consentient  tradition 
ought  not  to  be  lightly  set  aside.  Instead  of  rejecting  it 
on  the  ground  that  many  of  the  titles  in  the  psalms  are 
conjectural  and  untrustworthy — which  admittedly  is  the 
case — we  shall  act  more  wisely  in  using  it  as  a  clue  for  our 
guidance  where  facts  do  not  show  that  it  is  clearly  at  fault. 
Before  proceeding  further,  we  shall  look  at  what  is  to  be 
said  in  favour  of,  and  what  in  opposition  to,  this  view  that 
David  is  the  author  of  many  of  the  psalms. 

II.  THE  HISTORICAL  POSITION  OF  DAVID  AS  PSALMIST 

In  opposition  to  the  Biblical  tradition,  the  position 
taken  up  by  the  critics  is,  that  the  historical  David  is  not 
an  individual  to  whom  compositions  like  the  psalms  can 
,with  propriety  be  attributed:3  and,  generally,  that  the 
psalms  imply  a  stage  of  religious  development  far  in  advance 
of  that  of  the  Davidic  age.4  We  do  not  go  back  on  the 
question  of  the  religious  development,  further  than  to  remind 
the  reader  that,  till  lately,  critical  experts  felt  no  difficulty 
on  this  point,  but  would  here  ask  whether  the  accounts  we 
have  of  David  are  such  as  to  negative  his  authorship  of 
many  of  the  psalms.  We  assume  that  the  accounts  we  have 
rest  on  good  prophetic  narratives,  when  the  memory  of 
David's  personality  and  reign  was  still  fresh,  and  when  his 
virtues  and  failings  were  recorded  with  equal  fidelity.6 

Smith,  p.  197)  ;  eighteen  psalms  in  Book  II.  ("so  again,  in  the  2nd  Book, 
the  psalms  ascribed  to  David  .  .  .  form  a  connected  group,"  ibid.) ;  one  in 
Book  IV  ;  and  several  in  Book  V. — seventy -three  in  all. 

1  Cf.  1  Chron.  xxiii.  5  ;  xxv.  etc. 

2  See  above,  p.  390  ;  and  cf.  the  remarks  of  Professor  Robertson,  Psalms, 
pp.  92  ff. 

8  Thus  Reuss,  Wellhausen,  Cheyne,  W.  R.  Smith,  more  mildly  Driver, 
etc.  See  Note  A  on  The  Critical  Estimate  of  David. 

4  Cf.  Cheyne,  Origin  of  Psalter,  pp.  192  ff. 

8  See  above,  p.  381.  Cf.  Robertson,  Psalms,  p.  343.  See  his  whole  chap, 
xiii.  on  "David  the  Psalmist":  also  Perowne,  Psalms,  Introd.  chap.  i. 
"  David  and  the  Lyric  Poetry  of  the  Hebrews"  ;  and  Margoliouth,  Lines  of 
Defence  of  the  Biblical  Revelation,  pp.  194  ff. 


THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    441 

1.  We  begin  with  a  brief  survey  of  David's  career. 

(1)  It  will  not  be  denied  that,  in  the  history,  David's 
character  as  a  young  man  is  as  free  from  blemish  as  anyone 
could  wish.    He  is  chosen  by  Samuel  above  the  other  sons 
of  Jesse  on  the  ground  that  "  man  looketh  on  the  outward 
appearance,  but  Jehovah  looketh  on  the  heart."1      Saul's 
servants  attest   regarding    him    that    "he  is   cunning  in 
playing,  and  a  mighty  man  of  valour,  and  a  man  of  war, 
and  prudent  in  speech,  and  a  comely  person,  and  Jehovah 
is  with  him." 2     His  character  comes  out  at  its  best  in  his 
encounter  with   Goliath.8    Here   we   see   the   whole   man 
revealed — his  dauntlessness,  his  faith  in  God,  his  unerring 
skill  with   the   sling,  his  quiet  modesty  and   decision   of 
character,  the  energy  that  slumbered  behind.    The  women 
who  came  out  to  meet  him  with  chants  and   music  only 
echoed  the  universal  feeling  that  in  this  stripling  lay  the 
makings  of  the  kingliest  man  in  Israel.* 

(2)  In  his  life  at  the  court  of  Saul,  David's  character  is 
equally  admirable.     As  a  popular  hero  he  had  no  rival ;  he 
was  fast  friend  to  Jonathan ;  he  was  set  over  the  men  of 
war;  he  ate  at  the  king's  table,  and  soon  became  Saul's 
son-in-law.     But  honours  like  these  did  not  make  his  brain 
whirl,  or  his  feet  slide.     His  record  at  court  is  a  strictly 
honourable  one.     He  "  went  out  whithersoever  Saul  sent 
him,  and  behaved  himself  wisely ;  and  Saul  set  him  over  the 
men  of  war,  and  it  was  good  in  the  sight  of  all  the  people, 
and  also  in  the  sight  of  Saul's  servants." 6     Another  record 
about  him  is — and  this  is  after  the  tide  of  favour  had  turned, 
and  he  had  become  the  object  of  Saul's  deadly  jealousy : 
"  And  David  behaved  himself  wisely  in  all  his  ways,  and 
Jehovah   was  with   him.      And   when   Saul  saw   that  he 
behaved  himself  very  wisely,  he  stood  in  awe  of  him.     But 
all  Israel  and  Judah  loved   David;   for  he  went  out  and 
came  in  before  them."8    David's  position,  we  see  from  the 
narrative,  soon  became  a  very  difficult  one.     Jonathan  was 
with  him,  but  Saul  had  become  his  bitter  enemy.     His  life 
was  sought,  both  openly  and  by  plot  and  intrigue,  and,  with 
the  change  in  the  king's  mood,  envious,  rancorous  tongues 
would  not  be  wanting  to  shoot  their  shafts  at  him.     But, 
amidst  all,  as  David  showed  no  vanity  or  pride  in  the  day  of 

1 1  Sam.  xvi.  7.  *  Sam.  xvi.  18.  '  1  Sam.  xvii. 

4  1  Sam.  xviii.  7.  "1  Sam.  xviii.  5.  •  1  Sam.  xviii.  14-16. 


442  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS- 

his  prosperity,  so  now  he  makes  no  attempt,  by  counter- 
intrigue,  to  retaliate  upon,  or  overthrow  his  enemies,  in 
the  day  of  adversity.  Saul  deals  wrongly  towards  him,  but 
he  behaves  with  unimpeachable  fidelity  towards  SauL  His 
life  at  court  maintains  the  promise  of  his  boyhood. 

(3)  David  is  next  beheld  in  another  light,  as  chief 
of  a  land  of  outlaws,  maintaining  a  precarious  existence 
among  the  caves  and  fastnesses  of  Southern  Judea.  The 
position  was  not  one  of  his  seeking,  but,  driven  into  it,  he 
made  the  best  of  it  a  man  could.  His  first  task  was  to  reduce 
this  band  of  broken,  desperate  men — many  of  them,  probably, 
like  himself,  the  victims  of  misgovernment  and  oppression l 
— into  something  like  order  and  discipline,  and  in  this,  it  is 
evident,  he  admirably  succeeded.  His  next  task  was  to 
find  for  them  useful  employment.  The  term  "  freebooter " 
is  sometimes  applied  to  David  at  this  period  of  his  career ;  * 
but  if  by  "  freebooter  "  is  meant  a  chief  subsisting  by  lawless 
plunder,  nothing  could  be  further  from  the  truth.  The 
employment  David  found  for  his  men  was  of  a  different 
order.  Part  of  it,  as  we  see  from  the  case  of  Nabal,  consisted 
in  acting  as  a  kind  of  armed  police,  protecting  the  flocks  and 
herds  of  the  districts  in  which  they  lived  from  the  raids  of 
the  Philistines,  or  of  the  robber-tribes  of  the  desert.  "  The 
men,"  said  Nabal's  servants,  "  were  very  good  unto  us,  and 
we  were  not  hurt,  neither  missed  we  anything,  so  long  as  we 
were  conversant  with  them,  when  we  were  in  the  fields ;  they 
were  a  wall  unto  us  both  by  night  and  by  day,  all  the  while 
we  were  with  them  keeping  the  sheep."  3  The  other  part  of 
their  employment  lay  in  direct  war  against  the  Philistines, 
when  the  latter  came  out  on  their  marauding  expeditions. 
The  relief  of  the  town  of  Keilah  is  an  instance.4  A  man 
would  have  been  more  than  human  had  he  made  no  slips, 
committed  no  mistakes,  in  such  straits  ;  but  such  as  David's 
were,  e.g.,  his  deception  of  Ahimelech  and  flight  to  Achish 5 — 
an  initial  failure  of  faith — they  are  impartially  recorded,  and, 
taken  as  a  whole,  the  tenor  of  his  life  in  this  period  is  singularly 
to  his  credit.  He  was  at  the  time  the  object  of  unremitting 
persecution  by  Saul.  Against  this  one  man,  innocent  of 

1  1  Sam.  xxii.  2.     Of.  Maurice,  Prophet  and  Kings,  pp.  49  ff. 

2  Cheyne  speaks  of  him  as   "  the  versatile  condottiere,   chieftain,   and 
king." — Origin  of  Psalter,  p.  211. 

•  1  Sam.  xxv.  15,  16. 

4  1  Sam.  xxiii.  '  1  Sam.  xxi. 


THE  TROGUESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    443 

crime,  with  his  600  followers,  Saul  was  not  ashamed  to  bring 
into  the  field  an  army  of  3000,  hunting  him  from  rock 
to  rock,  and  district  to  district,  setting  a  price  upon  his 
head,  and  gladly  availing  himself  of  information  treacher- 
ously given  by  those  with  whom  David  was  in  hiding.1 
In  light  of  these  facts,  it  is  difficult  to  exaggerate  the 
nobleness  of  David's  conduct.  Not  one  act  did  he  do,  through 
all  these  years  of  persecution,  which  might  be  construed 
into  rebellion  against  Saul ;  and  when  twice,  in  the  heat  of 
Saul's  pursuit  of  him,  that  monarch's  life  was  at  his  mercy, 
twice,  against  the  wishes  of  his  followers,  he  magnani- 
mously spared  him.2  It  was  another  false  step,  but  probably 
prompted  by  the  same  desire  to  avoid  collision  with  Saul, 
when,  in  a  mood  of  despair,  he  betook  himself  a  second  time 
to  Gath,  there,  by  acceptance  of  Ziklag,  to  become  a  vassal 
of  the  Philistines — an  act  which  involved  him  in  a  course  of 
evasion  impossible  to  justify,  and  led  to  complications  that 
nearly  proved  disastrous.3 

(4)  At  length  the  discipline  of  trial  came  to  an  end,  and 
David  is  seen  firmly  planted  on  the  throne  as  ruler.  Saul 
was  slain  on  Gilboa,  and  in  deep-toned  and  affecting  strains, 
remembering  not  the  evil,  but  the  good  that  was  in  the 
fallen  king,  David  poured  out  his  soul  in  touching  lament 
for  him  and  Jonathan.  The  way  was  now  clear  for  David 
to  ascend  the  throne,  and  he  did  so,  first  at  Hebron,  as 
king  of  Judah,  then,  seven  years  after,  at  Hebron  again,  as 
king  of  all  Israel.*  His  great  powers  were  now  to  be  dis- 
played to  full  advantage.  Saul's  reign,  begun  with  promise, 
had  ended  in  darkness  and  disaster.  His  death  left  the 
kingdom  in  disunity  and  disorganisation,  a  prey  to  Philistine 
oppression  ;  religion  was  trampled  under  foot,  and  there  was 
no  security  for  person  or  property.  In  no  long  space  of 
time,  David  had  cleared  the  country  of  its  invaders,  had 
restored  to  it  its  independence,  had  united  its  tribes,  had 
re-established  its  liberties  upon  a  just  foundation,  and  had 
done  much  to  revive  the  waning  influence  of  religion.  With 
true  soldierly  instinct,  he  fixed  his  eye  on  the  rock  fortress 
of  Jebus  as  the  natural  capital  of  the  nation,  and  one  of  his 
first  steps  was  to  possess  himself  of  this  stronghold.6  His 

1  Cf.  1  Sam.  xxiii.  7  ff. ;  xxiv.  2  ff.  3  1  Sam.  xxiv.,  xxvi. 

*  1  Sam.  xxvii.,  xxix.  ff.  4  2  Sam.  ii.  4,  11  ;  v.  1  ff. 

5  2  Sam.  v.  1-10. 


444  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

next  care  was  to  bring  up  the  ark  of  God,  and  reorganise  the 
worship  of  Jehovah  at  Zion.1  Powerful  confederations  having 
been  formed  to  crush  his  rising  power,  he  called  out  his  forces, 
and  struck  a  succession  of  blows,  which  not  only  delivered 
him  from  the  danger,  but  made  him  overlord  of  the  whole 
country  from  the  river  of  Egypt  to  the  Euphrates.2  He  had 
even  in  contemplation  the  building  of  a  temple ;  but  this 
the  divine  voice  forbade,  while  rewarding  his  intention  with 
the  promise  that  his  seed  should  sit  upon  his  throne  for 
ever.8 

Such  were  some  of  David's  services  to  his  age ;  survey- 
ing them  impartially,  we  cannot  wonder  that  his  memory 
should  be  embalmed  with  lively  gratitude  in  the  minds 
of  the  Israelites  as  that  of  their  first  great  and  god- 
like king.  Over  against  these  services  are  to  be  placed 
the  blots  on  his  private  life  and  reign:  his  polygamy — 
no  sin,  however,  by  the  then  existing  code — his  over- 
indulgence to  his  children,  some  acts  of  seventy  in  war,  but, 
above  all,  the  one  great,  black  crime  of  his  adultery  with 
Bathsheba  and  the  murder  of  her  husband  Uriah.4  Nothing 
can  palliate  this  crime;  yet  even  here,  while  condemning 
David,  it  is  necessary  to  try  to  be  just.  For  a  Pharaoh, 
a  Nebuchadnezzar,  a  Xerxes,  or  other  Oriental  monarch  to 
covet  the  wife  of  a  subject,  and  give  orders  for  the  death  of 
her  husband,  would  have  seemed  to  most  ancient  historians 
a  venial  enough  fault,  and  they  would  probably  not  have 
occupied  half  a  dozen  lines  with  the  relation.5  It  is  the 
Biblical  history  itself,  by  the  bold  relief  into  which  it  throws 
this  shameful  incident, — by  its  impartiality  in  narrating, 
in  denouncing,  and  in  declaring  the  punishment  of  this  sin 
of  David, —  which  makes  it  bulk  so  largely  in  our  minds, 
and  inspires  us  with  such  just  horror  in  regard  to  it.  But 
it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  the  same  book  which  tells  us  of 

1  2  Sam.  yi.  8  2  Sam.  viii. 

8  2  Sam.  vii.  4  2  Sam.  xi. 

*  Cf.  the  remarks  of  Margoliouth  in  his  Lines  of  Defence  of  (he  Biblical 
Revelation,  pp.  209-10.     He  says  :  "  If  the  worst  act  of  David's  life,  the 

eiinful  story  of  Bathsheba,  be  considered,  the  underlying  character  which 
avid  exhibits  is  much  better  than  that  displayed  by  most  men  in  any  age. 
Max  Duncker  remarks  that  the  crime  which  caused  David  so  much  penitence 
and  contrition  was  one  of  which,  probably,  no  other  Oriental  monarch  would 
have  thought  anything,  and,  if  there  be  any  truth  in  history,  it  would  have 
occasioned  few  scruples  to  most  defenders  of  the  faith."  See  the  whole 
passage. 


THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION     445 

David's  fall,  tells  also  of  his  Litter  and  anguished  repentance 
for  the  fall,1  and  of  the  sad  and  heavy  strokes  of  retribution 
by  which  it  was  avenged.  The  story  of  Absalom's  rebellion 
is  a  long  drawn  out  commentary  on  the  words  in  which 
Nathan  announced  to  David  the  sorrow  that  would  fall  upon 
his  house  ;*  but  it  is  also  one  of  the  finest  revelations  in  the 
history  of  the  piety  and  submissiveness  of  the  man  who  is  said 
to  be  "  after  God's  own  heart." J  David's  sins  were  great,  but 
we  may  trust  a  Carlyle  or  a  Maurice  for  a  just  estimate  of 
his  character,*  rather  than  the  caviller  whose  chief  delight 
is  to  magnify  his  faults. 

2.  In  this  varied,  many-sided,  strangely-chequered  life, 
with  its  startling  vicissitudes,  its  religious  aspiration  and 
endeavour,  its  heights  and  depths  of  experience  of  good 
and  evil, — with  its  love  of  music  and  gift  of  lyric  song, — 
with  the  incitements  to  the  use  of  that  gift  springing  from 
the  companionship  of  prophets  like  Samuel  and  Nathan. 
from  the  promises  they  gave,  and  the  hopes  for  the  future 
of  the  kingdom  they  inspired, — can  anyone  say  that  there 
ia~«efc  «btmriant  material  for  pmlm -composition,  or  sufficient 
motive  or  skill  to  engage  in  it  ?  Had  the  anointing  to  be 
king,  the  trials  at  Saul's  court,  the  vicissitudes  of  the 
wilderness  persecution,  the  bringing-up  of  the  ark,  the 
promises  of  Nathan,  the  rebellion  of  Absalom,  the  sin  with 
Bathsheba  itself  and  the  penitence  that  followed,  no  power 
in  them  to  draw  forth  such  psalmody  ?  It  is  with  these 
very  occasions  that  the  psalms  ascribed  to  David  in  the  first 
books  are  traditionally  connected.  Can  we  permit  ourselves 
to  believe,  without  convincing  evidence,  that  tradition  was 
all  wrong  about  this,  and  that,  as  Professor  W.  E.  Smith  and 
others  will  have  it,  David's  religious  muse  found  utterance 
rather  "  in  sportful  forms  of  unrestrained  mirth," 5  so  that 
even  in  the  time  of  Amos,  David  appears  "as  the  chosen 
model  of  the  dilettante  nobles  of  Ephraim,  who  lay  stretched 
on  beds  of  ivory,  anointed  with  the  choicest  perfumes,  and 
mingling  music  with  their  cups  in  the  familiar  manner  of 
Oriental  luxury." 6  Let  those  believe  this  who  can :  we 

1  2  Sam.  xii.  «  2  Sam.  xii.  10-12.  s  1  Sam.  xiii.  14. 

4  Carlyle,  Heroex,  p.  72;  Maurice,  Prophets  and  Kings,  pp.  60  ff.  Cf. 
Stanley,  Jewish  Church,  i.  pp.  97  ff. 

8  O.T.  inJ.  C.,  p.  205. 

6  Ibid.  This  is  a  sweeping  inference  to  draw  from  the  statement  in 
Amos  vi.  5,  that  the  nobles  of  Samaria  invented  instruments  of  music  "like 


446  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

cannot.  David's  history,  whether  we  gather  it  from  "  Saul- 
Source,"  or  "  David-Source,"  or  Jerusalem-Source," l  presents 
no  resemblance  to  this  picture  of  dandified  frivolity.  Are 
we  to  suppose  that  when  David  left  Nathan  after  receiving 
the  promises  of  2  Sam.  vii.,2  it  was  to  give  expression  to 
his  adoring  feelings  in  sportful  ditties  —  or  that  Amos 
thought  he  did? 

In  asking  whether  David  actually  wrote  psalms,  we 
seem  to  find  firm  foothold  in  one  composition,  the  genuine- 
ness of  which  it  is  difficult  to  dispute — Ps.  xviii.  There 
are  two  recensions  of  this  psalm,  one  in  the  Psalter,  the 
other  in  2  Sam.  xxii.,  and  both  ascribe  the  authorship  to 
David.  Internal  evidence  so  strongly  bears  out  the  claim, 
that,  till  recently,  few  were  bold  enough  to  challenge  it.3 
Certainly,  if  any  psalm  is  David's,  it  is  this  one,  and  some, 
as  Schultz,  who  latterly  allowed  him  no  other  (earlier  lie 
had  conceded  ten),4  make  exception  of  this.  The  psalm 
is  interesting  in  many  ways ;  not  least  by  its  strong  asser- 
tion that  Jehovah  alone  is  God  (ver.  31).  Its  spiritual 
strain  in  such  expressions  as,  "As  for  God,  His  way  is 
perfect,"  the  allusion  to  a  "word  of  Jehovah"  which  is 
"  tried "  (ver.  30),  the  reference  to  the  promises  to  David 
and  his  seed  (ver.  50),  etc.,  are  stumbling-blocks  in  the 
way  of  the  modern  theory,  which  compel  resort  to  a 
later  dating.  Yet,  if  this  psalm  is  given  up,  it  is  difficult 
to  see  what  reliance  can  be  put  on  any  nation's  recollections 
of  its  great  authors  or  poets.  If,  however,  David  wrote  this 
long  and  virile  psalm,  the  probabilities  are  enormous  that 
he  wrote  others :  the  question  only  is,  how  many  ?  Baethgen 
is  not  sure  of  more  than  three  (Ps.  iii.,  iv.,  xviii.);  Ewakl, 
who  had  a  good  feeling  for  style,  gave  him  eleven,  with 
fragments  of  others;  Hitzig,  fourteen;  Bleek,  "no  in- 
considerable number";  while  Delitzsch  extended  the 

David,"  and  surely  as  unwarrantable  as  sweeping.  See  the  remarks  of 
Professor  Robertson  in  Poetry  and  Religion  of  the  Psalms,  p.  339.  Professor 
Robertson  points  out  that  the  David  of  the  prophets  is  just  the  "traditional  " 
David  (idealised)  (pp.  336  ff.).  Besides,  as  pointed  out  above,  the  image  of 
David  had  by  that  time  been  long  fixed  in  the  history. 

1  On  these  see  above,  pp.  77,  386. 

2  This  chapter  is  supposed  by  the  critics  to  have  received  Deuteronomic 
revision,  but  its  fundamental  features  can  hardly  be  contested. 

3  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  mention  names,  for  the  psalm  has  been  given 
to  David  by  nearly  all  writers  from  De  Wette  downwards. 

4  See  above,  p.  434.  Cheyne  will  not  allow  Ps.  xviii.  to  be  older  than  Josiah. 


THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    447 

number  to  over  forty.1  In  the  uncertainty  attaching 
to  the  titles,  it  is  doubtful  if  any  definite  conclusion 
as  to  number  can  be  reached;  though  we  are  disposed 
to  allow  more  weight  than  it  is  now  customary  to  do 
to  the  titles  of  at  least  the  first  and  second  books, 
which  seem  to  have  formed  originally  (with  exclusion  of 
the  separate  collection,  Ps.  xlii.-l.)  a  collection  of  Davidic 
}«alms.*  In  any  case  we  are  probably  warranted  in  holding 
that  the  number  of  Davidic  psalms  is  not  small,  and  includes 
most  of  those  which  have,  with  reasonable  unanimity,  been 
ascribed  to  the  royal  singer.  Besides  psalms  which  reflect  i 
the  writer's  personal  experiences — under  persecution,  in 
}>enitence,  in  flight  from  Absalom,  in  gratitude  for  de- 
liverance— there  are  others  evidently  composed  for  special 
tffiBMJflM,  as,  e.g.,  the  bringing  up  of  the  ark  to  Zion 
(Ps.  xxiv.).  Most  naturally,  also,  as  has  been  already 
suggested,  those  psalms  which  mention  the  "tabernacle" 
on  Zion  (Pss.  xv.,  xxvii.)  may  be  referred  to  this  reign.8 
Be  the  number  of  Davidic  psalms,  however,  greater  or 
smaller,  the  inference  as  to  the  level  of  religious  belief 
and  practice  is  not  much  affected.  As  anyone  can  see 
in  reading  the  psalms,  practically  the  same  elevated  idea 

1  Ewald  ascribes  to  David  Pss.  in.,  iv.,  vii.,  viii.,  xi.,  XT.,  xviii.,  xix.  1-6, 
xxiv.,  xxix.,  xxxii.,  ci.  etc.  ;  Kiehin  most  of  the  above,  with  Pss.  xxiii., 
11.  etc.  ("Many  of  those  psalms,"  he  says,  "which  bear  David's  name, 
can  be  ascribed  to  him  with  full  certainty." — Eiideit.  ii.  p.  190) ;  Bleek 
a  number  more,. as  Pss.  Iv.,  lx.,  Ixi.,  Ixiii.  etc. 

»Cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  O.T.  in  J.  C.,  pp.  197-201,  214.  There  is  the 
possibility  of  underestimating  as  well  as  overestimating  the  titles.  Cf. 
Margolionth's  spirited  remarks  in  his  Linei  of  Dtfrnce,  with  illustrations, 
pp.  199  ff.  This  writer  makes  an  ingenious  use  of  the  argument  from 
"silence "  in  the  psalms,  which  may  be  commended  to  those  who  are 
disposed  to  build  much  on  that  argument  (pp.  182  ff.).  Mr.  Gladstone's 
suggestive  section  on  the  Psalms  in  his  Impregnable  Rock  may  also  be 
flOBpared. 

^The  word  "temple"  in  Pss.  v.  7,  xxvii.  4,  is  by  no  means  decisive 
against  Davidic  authorship.  God's  house  at  Shi  Ion  is  already  called 
"temple"  (see  above,  p.  172).  We  can  understand  a  sacred  t«nt  which 
has  some  degree  of  permanence,  and  is  regarded  as  the  stated  at»ode  of 
Jehovah,  ana  the  place  of  His  worship,  being  wiled  a  "  temple  "  ;  but  it  is 
difficult  to  think  of  a  temple  like  Solomon's  lit-in^  *|>okeu  of  as  a  "tent." 
In  Ps.  xxvii.  the.  wordx  are  use«l  together  (vers,  4,  5,  6V.  If  it  is  said  that 
the  word  "tent"  is  applied  to  thu  temple  with  a  reminiscence  of  the  older 
tabernacle,  this  implies  the  reality  of  that  older  Ubernacle,  as  contended  for 
in  a  previous  chapter  (Chap.  VI.).  It  is  to  be  remembered  also  that  th« 
proper  temple  of  God  is  thought  of  as  in  heaven  (Ps.  xi.  4).  In  Ps. 
ixxxiv.  1  the  word  rendered  " talx-macles"  is  different  ("dwelling- 
places  "). 


448  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

of  God,  the  same  zeal  for  righteousness,  the  same  spirit 
of  trust  and  confidence  in  Jehovah,  the  same  religious 
aspirations  and  affections,  are  present  in  all.  The  fact 
affords  a  valuable  corroboration  of  our  previous  conclusions. 

III.  COLLECTION  OF  THE  PSALMS  AND  PLACE  IN  CANON 

The  conclusions  we  have  reached  as  to  the  existence  of 
Davidic  and  pre-exilian  psalms  seem  to  us  borne  out  by  the 
facts  known  as  to  the  history  of  the  Psalter,  and  the  place 
which  the  psalms  hold  in  the  Canon.  The  periods  to  which 
psalm-composition  is  chiefly  referred  by  those  who  recognise 
pre-exilian  psalms  are,  after  David,  the  reigns  of  Jehoshaphat 
and  Hezekiah.1  Several  psalms  are  with  much  confidence 
connected  with  the  great  deliverance  from  Sennacherib  in 
the  latter  reign  (Pss.  xlvi.,  xlviii.  etc.).  However  this  may 
be,  it  is  not  disputed  that  the  process  of  the  collection  of 
psalms  was  a  gradual  one,  and  that  at  one  time  separate 
collections,  as  of  Psalms  of  David  (cf.  Ps.  Ixxii.  20),  of 
Korahite  and  Asaphite  psalms,  etc.,  were  in  circulation.2 
Then,  with  the  addition  of  later  psalms,  came,  at  a 
subsequent  date,  the  division  of  the  whole  into  five  books, 
after  the  model  of  the  Pentateuch.3  To  the  Psalter, 
thus  completed,  a  leading  place  was  assigned  among  the 
Hagiographa,  or  Sacred  Writings — the  third  part  of  the 
Jewish  Canon.4 

When  were  these  collections,  or  the  earlier  of  them, 
made  ?  And  when  was  the  Canon  of  the  psalms  completed  ? 
The  modern  view,  we  have  seen,  relegates  all  to  the  period 
after  the  exile;  but,  as  respects  at  least  the  Davidic 
collections — probably  also  the  Korahite  and  Asaphite 
collections — in  their  original  form,  this  cannot  be  proved, 

1  Thus  Delitzsch,  Perowne,  etc. 

2  See  W.  R.  Smith,  as  above.     It  is  significant  that  we  have  no  trace  of 
the   Korahites  as  singers  under  the  second  temple,   as  we  have  of  the 
Asaphites  (cf.  Neh.  xi.  22).     Professor  W.  R.  Smith's  supposition  that  the 
Kornhites  were  developed  after  Nehemiah's  time  (of  which  there  is  no  proof), 
and  were  again  obsolete  as  singers  by  the  time  of  the  Chronicler  (p.  204),  i.s 
far-fetched,  and  depends  solely  on  the  assumption  that  the  Korahite  col- 
lection is  post-exilian.    The  fact  mentioned  is  rather  a  proof  that  it  was  not. 

s  As  mentioned  earlier  (p.  197)  the  five  books  are  Ps.  i.-xli.  ;  xlii.- 
Ixxii.  ;  Ixxiii.-lxxxix.  ;  xc.-cvi.  ;  cvii.-cl. 

4  On  the  subject  of  the  collection  of  the  psalms,  and  the  closing  of  the 
Canon,  cf.  Kirkpatrick,  Psalms,  pp.  xlv.  ff.  ;  Robertson,  Hist,  and  Religion 
of  tilt  Psalms,  chaps,  iv.-vi.  ;  W.  R.  Smith,  as  above  ;  Driver,  etc. 


THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    449 

;ind  many  considerations  speak  to  the  contrary.     We  touch 
only  on  single  points. 

1.  At  the  lower  end,  the  Books  of  Maccabees  presuppose 
the  Psalter.    The  first  book  (about  100  B.C.)  quotes  freely 
Ps.  Ixxix.  2,  3  as  from  Scripture  (1  Mace,  vil  17);  and  the 
second  book  speaks  of  the  writings  in  the  third  division  of 
the  Canon  loosely  as  "  the  works  of  David,"  showing  that 
the  psalms  then  held  a  leading  place  in  this  division  (cf. 
Luke  xxiv.  44). 

2.  The  Psalter  was  admittedly  complete,  and   divided 
into  its  five  books,  at  the  time  of  the  Septuagint  transla- 
tion, which,  it  is  allowed,  cannot  be  placed  lower  than  the 
second  half  of  the   second  century  B.C.  (before   130  B.C.), 
and  may  possibly  be  a  good  deal  earlier.1    It  is  evident  that 
the  Psalter  must  already  have  been  recognised  as  part  of 
the  Canon  for  a  considerable  time  in  order  to  its  being 
included  in  this  translation.     An  important  testimony  to 
the  antiquity  of  many  of  the  psalms  is  afforded  by  the  fact 
that  certain  of  the  musical  and   liturgical  headings — e.g., 
the  common  one,  "For  the  Chief  Musician"2 — are  unin- 
telligible to  the  Greek  translators. 

3.  We  have  indubitable  evidence  in   the  Prologue  to  • 
the  Greek  translation  of    the  work  of  Jesus,  the  son  of 
Sirach  (Ecclesiasticus),  made  by  his  grandson,  132  B.C.,  that 
the  Canon  in  its  three  divisions  was  substantially  completed, 
not  only  in  the  translator's  own  time,  but  in  that  of  his 
grandfather,  the  author  of  the  book  (about  200  B.C.),  and 
the  work  itself  gives  internal  evidence  of  the  use  of  the 
psalms.    This  is  borne  out  by  the  recovery  of  portions  of 
the  Hebrew  text.8 

1  The  LXX  translation  of  the  law  was  made  about  the  middle  of  the 
third  century  n.c.,  but  there  is  no  clear  evidence  as  to  when  the  work 
was  complete*!  by  the  translation  of  the  Hagiographa.  The  language  of  the 
grandson  of  the  son  of  Sirach,  however,  implies  that  a  translation  already 
existed  in  his  day,  and  other  facts  support  this  conclusion.  Ehrt,  in  his 
work  on  the  subject  (quoted  by  Robertson,  Psalms,  p.  87),  believes  that  the 
original  work  of  Ben  Sirach  implies  the  use  of  the  LAA  version  of  the  psalms. 

1  This  heading  is  prefixed  to  fifty-five  \  sahns,  of  which  fifty-two  are  found 
in  Rooks  I. -III.,  ana  three  only  in  Book  V.  (elsewhere  only  in  Hah.  iii.  19). 
It  is  misunderstood  by  the  translators,and  had  evidently  long  passed  out  of  use. 

'  The  grandson  refers  in  his  Prologue  to  "the  law,  ana  the  prophecies, 
and  tht  rest  cf  thi  books"  (i.e.,  a  definite  number),  and  speaks  of  his  grand- 
father's acquaintance  with  the  same.  This  is  a  strong  point  with  those  who 
argue  against  Maccabcan  psalms  (e.g.,  Riehm,  Baethgen,  Kirkpatrick).  A 
cunoboration  of  the  statement  is  afforded  by  the  recovery  of  portions  of  the 

29 


450  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS- 

•  4.  The  Books  of  Chronicles  (not  later  than  about  330 
B.C.)  know  the  Psalter,  and,  as  before  seen,1  carry  back 
psalmody  and  the  musical  arrangements  of  the  sanctuary 
to  the  time  of  David.  In  1  Chron.  xvi.  7-36  is  given  a 
long  psalm  as  illustrative  of  the  kind  of  praise  offered  at 
the  bringing  up  of  the  ark  to  Zion.  This  piece  is  found  on 
inspection  to  be  composed  of  passages  from  Pss.  cv.,  xcvi., 
and  cvi.,  and  concludes  with  the  doxology  at  the  end  of  Ps. 
cvi.  which  marks  the  close  of  Book  IV.  of  the  Psalter.2 
The  inference  is  natural  that  the  division  into  books  was 
already  made  in  the  time  of  the  Chronicler. 

5.  The  Book  of  Jonah,  which  Professor  Eobertson  places 
provisionally  in  the  fifth  century  B.C.,  and  which,  in  any  case, 
is  earlier  than  the  close  of  the  prophetic  Canon,  contains  a 
prayer  of  Jonah  (chap.  ii.  2-10),  admittedly  based  on  passages 
from  different  parts   of  the  Psalter.3    This  implies  some 
collection  of  these  psalms. 

6.  It  was  shown  that  Jeremiah  (chap.  xvii.  8)  unmistak- 
ably quotes  from  Ps.  i.,  which  is  generally  acknowledged  to 
be  an  introduction  to  the  first  collection  of  Davidic  psalms 
(cf.   Ezek.   xlvii.    12).4     This   collection,  therefore,  is  pre- 
sumably earlier.     Further,  the  formula  of  thanksgiving  in 
Jer.  xxxiii.  11,  "  Give  thanks  to  Jehovah  of  hosts,  for  Jehovah 
is  good :  for  His  mercy  endureth  for  ever,"  is  found  only  in 
psalms  included  in  Books  IV.  and  V.  of  the  Psalter. 

7.  It  was  seen  likewise  that  the  musical  arrangements 
of  the  second  temple  were  an  inheritance  from  the  period 
before  the   exile.6    It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
liturgical  use  of  the  psalms  was  so  also. 

The  conclusion  is  not  overstrained  that  the  basis  of  the 
Psalter  was  already  laid  before  the  exile — how  much  earlier 
it  is  impossible  to  tell,  but  the  Davidic  collections  may  go 

original  text  of  Ecclesiasticus.  Dr.  Schechter  holds  that  the  allusions 
to  the  psalms  in  the  work  extend  over  "all  the  books  and  groups  of  the 
psalms."  "The  impression  produced  ...  is  that  of  reading  the  work  of 
a  post-canonical  author,  who  already  knew  his  Bible,  and  was  continually 
quoting  it  "  (in  Kirkpatrick,  Psalms,  p.  xlviii). 

1  See  above,  p.  440. 

2  Professor  W.  R.  Smith  argues  that  the  doxology  is  an  original  part  of 
the  psalic,  and  does  not  carry  with  it  the  inference  that  the  Psalter  was 
already  formed.     Ha  thinks  that  doxologies  were  appended  only  to  the  first 
three  books  (p.  196),  but  admits  that  "the  majority  of  modern  scholars 
are  against  him  in  this  opinion  "  (p.  194). 

*  Cf.  Robertson,  pp.  103  ff.  4  See  above,  p.  439. 

1  See  above,  p.  439. 


THE  PHOGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    451 

lack  a  long  way — and  that  the  psalms,  especially  in  the 
curlier  books,  may  fairly  be  used  as  evidence  of  the  type 
of  piety  in  godly  circles  in  Israel  from  the  days  of  David 
downwards.  The  witness  they  bear  in  no  wise  agrees  with 
ttie  Wellhausen  representation. 


PART  II 
THE  PREDICTIVE  ELEMENT  IN  PROPHECY 

Hebrew  prophecy  will  be  acknowledged  by  most  to  be 
a  perfectly  unique  phenomenon  in  the  history  of  religions. 
Whatever  the  etymology  of  the  name  (Nabi),1  the  prophet 
himself  stands  clearly  out  as  one  who  is  conscious  of  receiv- 
ing a  message  directly  from  Jehovah,  which  he  is  com- 
missioned to  impart  to  men.2  In  its  beginnings  prophecy 
goes  as  far  back  as  revelation,3  but  the  founder  of  the 
prophetic  order  in  the  stricter  sense  is  Samuel.4  We  may 
pass  over  the  development  of  prophecy  in  the  intervening 
period— over  even  the  great  figures  of  Elijah  and  Elisha, 
who  are,  however,  acting  rather  than  teaching  prophets, — 
and  come  at  once  to  the  full  bloom  of  prophecy  in  the  age 
of  the  writing  prophets.  Here,  plainly,  the  nature  of 
prophecy  can  be  studied  to  best  advantage. 

It  is  not  denied  that  genuine  prophecy  presupposed  in' 
the  person  exercising  the  prophetic  function  a  special  natural 
endowment,  or  that  it  was  psychologically  conditioned.  Its 
n  itural  basis  was  a  species  of  genius,  which  we  are  still  not 
slow  to  recognise  in  those  who  possess  it,  enabling  them  to 
s  e  deep  into  the  heart  of  things,  where  others  only  behold  the 
Hiirface,  and  to  speak  the  word  necessary  for  guidance,  where 
others  grope  and  stumble  (cf.  Ps.  Ixxiv.  9).  While,  how- 
ever, this  gift  of  "geniality,"  of  insight,  of  divining  intuition, 

1  Gesenius,  Kuenen,  Oehler,  etc.,  derive  the  word  from  a  root  meaning 
"  to  bubble"  ;  others  explain  differently. 

*  Augustine  calls  the  prophet  cnunciator  verborum  dri  hominibu*. 

•  All  the  great  revelation -figures  (Abraham,  Jacob,  Moses)  are  represented 
as  prophesying,   and  Abraham  and   Moses  are  designated    prophets.     In 
Month)  times,  cf.   the  interesting  episode  of  Eldad   aud  Meciuu   und  the 
seventy  elders  in  Num.   xi.   24-29.     Under  the  Judges   Deborah  was  a 
projihe'teas.     Cf.  A.  B.  Davidson,  0.  T.  Prophecy,  pp.  1 7  tf. 

4  1  Sam.  iii.  19-21  ;  ix.  9.    To  Samnel  belongs,  apparently,  the  insti- 
tution of  the  prophetic  guilds. 


452  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

belongs  to  the  prophetic  endowment,  it  is  far  from  con- 
stituting the  whole  of  it.1  The  genuine  prophet  is  conscious 
of  being  laid  hold  of  by  the  Spirit  of  God  as  other  men  are 
not ;  of  receiving  a  message  from  Jehovah  which  he  knows  is 
not  the  product  of  his  own  thoughts,  but  recognises  as  God's 
word  coming  to  him ;  which  is  imparted  to  him  with  perfect 
clearness  and  overpowering  certainty ;  and  which  brings  with 
it  the  call  and  constraint  to  deliver  it  to  those  for  whom  it 
is  meant.  The  claim  of  the  prophets  to  speak  the  word  of 
God  was  sustained  by  the  godliness  of  their  character,2  by  the 
self -attesting  power  of  their  message,  as  a  word  instinct  with 
spirit  and  life,  and  fitted  to  the  time  and  need  for  which  it 
was  spoken,  by  its  coherence  with  previous  revelation,  and, 
finally,  by  the  sure  fulfilment  of  their  word,  so  far  as  it  was 
predictive.8  This  brings  us  to  the  special  topic  we  are  to 
consider — the  predictive  element  in  prophecy. 

I.  SUPERNATURAL  PREDICTION  AN  ELEMENT  IN  PROPHECY 

i  It  was  certainly  an  error  of  the  older  apologetic  to  place 
the  essence  of  prophecy,  as  was  often  done,  in  prediction. 
The  prophet  was  in  the  first  instance  a  man  speaking  to  his 
own  time.  His  message  was  called  forth  by,  and  had  its 
adaptation  to,  some  real  and  urgent  need  of  his  own  age :  it 
was  the  word  of  God  to  that  people,  time,  and  occasion. 
It  needs,  therefore,  in  order  to  be  properly  understood,  to 
be  put  in  its  historical  setting,  and  interpreted  through 

1  Apart  from  more  naturalistic  writers,  this  is  the  view  favoured  by 
Giesebrecht  in  his  Die  Berufgabung  der  fittest.  Propheten,  pp.  32-36,  72-77, 
etc.  (cf.  Preface).  Prediction  (which  in  special  cases  is  admitted)  is 
explained  "  out  of  a  natural  faculty  with  which  God  has  endowed  the 
prophet"  (p.  73) — a  "gift  of  Ahnungsvermdgens  "  (pp.  74,  76,  77,  etc.).  But 
Giesebrecht  goes  on  to  ascribe  so  much  to  the  "supernatural"  action  of 
God's  Spirit  in  heightening  and  directing  this  natural  faculty  for  the  ends 
of  revelation  (pp.  77,  87,  97,  etc.),  that  his  view  comes  to  differ  little 
in  principle  from  tliat  indicated  above.  See  below,  p.  456. 

a  Giesebrecht  says  :  "  Euenen  himself  concedes  to  the  prophets  a  surpass- 
ing piety  and  moral  earnestness.  Intentional  deception  is  in  the  nature 
of  the  case  completely  excluded.  The  high  state  of  their  intelligences,  and 
the  stage  of  clearest  religious  knowledge  and  finest  moral  judgment  attained 
by  them  excites  Kuenen's  admiration.  Is  it  credible  that  these  men  were 
self-deceived?" — As  above,  p.  16. 

*  On  the  supernatural  element  in  prophecy,  see  the  works  on  prophecy  by 
A.  B.  Davidson,  Riehin,  Delitzsch,  Orelh,  etc.,  and  Oeliler,  Theol.  ofO.T.,  ii. 
pp.  313  ff.  Cf.  also  the  striking  remarks  of  Kautzsch  in  his  Das  Bkibende 
Bcdeutung  des  A.T.,  pp.  29  ff. 


THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    453 

that.  It  must  be  put  to  the  account  of  modern  criticism 
that  it  has  done  much  to  foster  this  better  way  of  regarding 
prophecy,  and  has  in  consequence  greatly  vivified  the  study 
of  the  prophetic  writings,  and  promoted  a  better  under- 
standing of  their  meaning. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  modern  view,  in  its  desire  to 
assimilate  prophecy  as  much  as  possible  to  the  utterances 
of  natural  human  genius,  does  palpable  violence  to  scriptural 
teaching  in  denying,  or  making  light  of,  this  element  of 
prediction.  Not,  indeed,  that,  up  to  a  certain  point, 
prediction  is  altogether  denied.  The  prophets,  it  is  allowed,  • 
had  a  peculiar — some  would  perhaps  concede  supernatural — 
insight  into  the  character  of  God  and  the  laws  of  His  moral 
government,  and,  in  the  strength  of  their  assurance  of  the 
divine  righteousness,  did  not  hesitate  to  draw  what  seemed 
to  them  the  necessary  deductions,1  announcing  chastise- 
ment and  ruin  as  the  result  of  national  transgression,  and 
proclaiming  the  certainty  of  the  ultimate  triumph  of  God's 
kingdom.1  And,  beyond  question,  they  did  this.  But  it  is 
just  as  certain,  if  we  are  to  do  justice  to  the  full  nature  of 
Biblical  prophecy,  that  we  must  recognise  a  great  deal 
more.  The  prophets  do  more  than  simply  give  forecasts 
of  the  general  course  of  God's  providence  which,  as 
deductions  of  their  own  mind,  might  easily  be,  and  it  is  con- 
tended very  frequently  were,  mistaken.  How  much  more 
they  did  give  can  only  be  seen  by  looking  at  the  prophecies 
themselves. 

It  was,  in  truth,  in  a  sense  inevitable  that  prediction 

1  Kuenen,  as  shown  in  our  first  chapter,  and  with  him  most  of  the 
modems  (Wellhauscn,  Stade,  Duhm,  etc.),  deny  the  supernatural  character 
of  prophecy  altogether  (Prophet*  and  Prophecy,  pp.  4,  94-5,  227,  etc.  See 
atove,  pp.  12, 1 3).  Kuenen  denies  eren  the  truth  of  the  prophetic  conception 
of  the  divine  righteousness,  and  the  predictions  based  thereon.  "  While 
]M»ying  homage  to  the  tar»ntwu  of  the  prophet's  conception  of  Jahveh,  we 
must  positively  deny  its  truth,  .  .  .  The  prophetical  prediction  of  tho 
future  now  presents  itself  to  us  as  the  necessarily  incorrect  concluMon 
drawn  from  premises  which  themselves  were  only  half  correct"  (pp.  354, 859). 

1  Ewald  nrpresentii  perhaps  the  high-w»t>  r  mark  of  this  way  of  regard- 
ing prophecy.  "What  the  prophet  can,"  he  says,  "with  perfect  right, 
announce  as  the  word  of  hi*  God,  is  in  its  contents  nothing  but  the 
application  of  some  general  divine  truth  to  a  given  moral  condition,  or  a 
clear  contemplation  at  to  the  confusions  or  unevenne^ses  of  moral  life  before 
him,  springing  out  of  the  clear  light  of  the  Spirit.  What  belongs  to  it  falls 
within  the  province  of  the  purer,  i.e.,  the  divine  Spirit ;  and  if  a  prophet 
knows  any  thing  more,  urn!  ran  give  answers  to  other  questions,  this  is 
something  awuU'iila]."— Die  /Vup/iWm,  i.  p.  12  (E.T.  p.  19). 


454  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

should  enter  into  such  prophecy  as  we  have  in  Scripture. 
-The  prophet  spoke,  indeed,  to  his  own  time,  but  his  message 
had  of  necessity  an  aspect  of  warning  and  promise  for  the 
future.  It  contained  a  declaration  of  what  God  would  do 
in  the  event  of  disobedience  or  obedience.  Its  cogency 
depended  on  such  announcements  as  it  gave  being  reliable. 
Prophecy  was  occupied,  moreover,  not  simply  with  the 
immediate  temporal  consequences  of  the  nation's  conduct. 
Its  supreme  interest  was  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  its 
eye  was  ever  directed  to  the  ultimate  triumph  of  that 
kingdom.  Whatever  promises  it  gave,  or  hopes  it  held 
out,  had  all  reference  to  that  ultimate  consummation.  It 
could  not,  therefore,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  ignore  the 
future.1  It  had  statements  to  make  regarding  it,  growing 
out  of  the  peculiar  exigencies  of  the  time,  which  would 
have  had  little  worth  had  they  been  simply  forecasts  of  the 
prophet's  own  mind.  Their  whole  value  depended  on  their 
having  on  them  the  seal  of  true  divine  revelation.  This 
is  the  simple  and  complete  answer  to  those  who  meet  the 
contention  that  Biblical  prophecy  contains  prediction  by 
saying  that  such  a  view  puts  prophecy  on  a  level  with 
"  soothsaying."  This  is  in  no  wise  the  case.  Prediction 
is  never  introduced  as  a  mere  wonder,  or  on  its  own 
account,  but  always  in  connection  with,  and  with  a  direct 
bearing  upon,  the  kingdom  of  God.2  Soothsaying,  on  the 
contrary,  has  no  moral  root,  and  subserves  no  wider  moral 
purpose;  but  is  the  result  of  a  mere  curious  prying  into 
the  future,  and  involves  the  use  of  superstitious,  and 
generally  irrational  means,  to  attain  that  end.  Its  chief 
value  is  the  testimony  it  bears  to  the  inextinguishable 

1  Cf.  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson,  0.  T.  Prophecy,  p.  294  :  "  It  is  now  a  common- 
place that  prophecy  did  not,  even  in  the  main,  consist  of  prediction.     The 
commonplace  is  true,  if  predictions  of  mere  contingent  occurrences  of  a  private 
nature  are  meant.     Prophecy  was  occupied  with  the  destinies  of  the  king- 
dom of  God.     But  the  essence  of  prophecy  is  prediction — prediction  not 
only  of  the  far  distant  consummation  and  glory  of  the  kingdom,  but  also 
of  the  nearer  steps  necessary  to  this,  the  downfall  of  the  State,  and  the 
instruments  who  shall  accomplish  it."   Cf.  pp.  89,  96-98,  etc.  :  Theol.  ofO.T., 
p.  177. 

2  Cf.    Kautzsch,  Das  Bleibcnde  Bedfutung,  p.  31.     The   distinguishing 
mark,  he  says,  by  which  Hebrew  prophecy  is  raised  high  as  heaven  above 
all  those  heathen  phenomena  is  :  "  This  prophecy  stands  in  the  service  of  a 
divine  plan  of  salvation,  and  indeed  in  a  service  from  which  it  cannot  with- 
draw itself."     It  is  the  more  singular  that  Kautzsch  should  speak  slight- 
ingly of  prediction  (p.  30). 


THE  PUOGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    455 

craving  of  men's  hearts  for  some  kind  of  revelation  of  God 
uud  the  future.1 


II.  REALITY  OP  SUPERNATURAL  PREDICTION 

Many  are  the  straits  to  which  rationalism  is  reduced,  as 
Kuenen'g  large  volume  testifies,2  in  its  attempt  to  eliminate 
the  predictive  element  from  prophecy.  So  deeply  inwoven, 
however,  is  prediction  into  the  texture  of  Scripture,  that 
try  as  the  critics  may,  they  cannot  altogether  get  rid  of 
this  unwelcome  proof  of  the  presence  of  the  supernatural. 
We  vividly  recall  the  impression  made  upon  our  mind 
l»y  the  first  reading  of  the  book  so  often  referred  to  in 
these  pages — Wellhausen's  History  of  Israel.  The  book  is 
an  attempt  to  give  a  thoroughly  rationalising  account  of 
Israel's  history,  but  the  effect  it  produced  was  to  make  us 
feel  as  never  before  the  impossibility  of  every  such  natural 
explanation.  The  supernatural  was  constantly  thrusting  in 
its  head,  notwithstanding  all  the  critic's  attempts  to  keep 
it  out  Was  it,  e.g.,  the  Exodus  from  Egypt  ?  The  people 
were  led  by  Moses  round  by  the  Red  Sea,  but  by  a  singular 
coincidence — a  marvellous  piece  of  good  fortune — the  sea 
dried  just  in  time  to  let  them  through.  "  His  design,"  we 
are  told,  "was  aided  in  a  wholly  unlooked-for  way,  by  a 
marvellous  occurrence  quite  beyond  his  control,  and  which 
no  sagacity  could  possibly  have  foreseen."8  Was  it  the 
tlolivenmce  of  Jerusalem  from  Sennacherib?  Isaiah  alone 
of  all  the  people  retained  his  confidence  in  God's  help,  and 
gave  Hezekiah  in  the  name  of  Jehovah  the  most  explicit 
assurance  that  the  city  would  not  be  taken — that  the 
enemy  would  not  shoot  an  arrow  into  it,  nor  bring  up 
a  shield  against  it.4  He  predicted  this  in  words  of  scornful 
exultation,  and  staked  his  prophetic  reputation  on  the  result. 
"And  thus,"  says  Wellhausen,  "it  proved  in  the  issue. 
l'«y  a  still  unexplained  catastrophe,  the  main  army  of 

1  In  part,  as  Dent.  xvii.  10  IT.  shows,  prophecy  was  given  to  satisfy  the 
nr.-.l  for  which  an  illegitimate  satisfaction  was  sought  in  heathen  mantic. 
On  the  contrast  with  heathen  and  other  forms  of  prediction,  cf.  Orelli, 
Profiluty,  p.  23 ;  Kaatzsch,  a*  above,  pp.  80,  81. 

*  Cf.  the  severe  criticism  of  Kuenen's  work  in  Giesehrecht,  pp.  JMJ. 

'  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  433.  Others,  aa  before  shown,  dispose  of  the  miracle 
by  denying  the  fact. 

4  Isa.  xxxvii.  20-36. 


456  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

Sennacherib  was  annihilated  on  the  frontier  between 
Egypt  and  Palestine,  and  Jerusalem  was  freed  from 
danger."1  Is  it  the  prediction  of  the  downfall  and 
captivity  of  Israel  by  Amos?  This  prophet,  Wellhausen 
admits,  "prophesied  as  close  at  hand  the  downfall  of  the 
kingdom,  which  just  at  that  moment  was  rejoicing  most  in 
the  consciousness  of  power,  and  the  deportation  of  the 
people  to  a  far-off  northern  land."2  We  have  but  to 
contrast  this  uniform  tone  of  certainty  of  the  Hebrew 
prophets  with  the  language,  e.g.,  of  a  John  Bright  during 
the  progress  of  the  American  civil  war,  to  see  how  great  is 
the  difference  between  prophecy  and  political  perception, 
even  when  the  latter  is  quickened  by  the  most  intense 
consciousness  of  the  righteousness  of  a  cause.  "  What  the 
revolt  is  to  accomplish,"  said  Mr.  Bright,  "  is  still  hidden 
from  our  sight ;  and  I  will  abstain  now,  as  I  have  always 
done,  from  predicting  what  is  to  come.  I  know  what  I  hope 
for — what  I  shall  rejoice  in — but  I  know  nothing  of  future 
events  which  will  enable  me  to  express  a  confident  opinion."8 
These  instances  would  be  remarkable  enough  if  they 
stood  alone ;  the  disconcerting  thing  for  the  newer  theory  of 
prophecy  is  that  they  do  not  stand  alone.  The  Bible  is  full 
of  cases  of  the  same  kind.  This  can  be  maintained  notwith- 
standing all  theories  of  the  critics  as  to  the  dates  of  the 
books.  It  was  when  kings  and  nobles  were  lying  on  beds  of 
ivory,  and  indulging  in  every  species  of  dissipation  and 
amusement,  that  Amos,  as  just  mentioned,  wrote :  "  There- 
fore will  I  cause  you  to  go  into  captivity  beyond  Damascus, 
saith  Jehovah,  whose  name  is  the  God  of  hosts."  *  It  was 
a  century  and  more  before  the  captivity  of  Judah  that 
Micah  foretold :  "  Therefore  shall  Zion  for  your  sake  be 
ploughed  as  a  field,  and  Jerusalem  shall  become  heaps.  .  .  . 

1  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  483.     Kuenen  admits  the  oracle  to  be  indubitably 
genuine,  but  attempts  to  undermine  the  fulfilment  (pp.  229  ff.).     Professor 
II.  P.  Smith  has  more  than  doubts  about  both  oracle  and  history. 

2  Ibid.  p.  470.     Giesebrecht  says:  "They  [the  predictions]  have  often 
for  their  content  occurrences  of  which  at  the  time  of  the  prophet  no  one 
couM  have  any  idea:   so  Amos,  in  a  peaceful,  nay,  seemingly  illustrious 
time,  predicts  the  Assyrian  campaign,  till  then  unheard  of"  (p.  73).     This 
writer,  as  before  stated,  finds  the  explanation  of  these  predictions  (which 
were  not  always  fulfilled)  in  the  divine  quickening  of  a  natural  faculty  of 
divination  or  presentiment,  of  which  sporadic  examples  are  found  elsewhere 
(pp.  73-76). 

3  Speech,  June  30,  1863.  *  Amos  v.  27. 


THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    457 

Be  in  pain,  and  labour  to  bring  fortb,  0  daughter  of  Zion, 
like  a  woman  in  travail ;  for  now  shall  thou  go  forth  out 
of  the  city,  and  shall  dwell  in  the  field,  and  shall  come  even 
unto  Babylon  " — even  this  is  not  all,  but — "  there  shalt  thou 
be  delivered;  there  shall  Jehovah  redeem  thee  from  the 
hand  of  thine  enemies." l  Jeremiah's  prophecies  belong  to 
the  last  years  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  but  it  is  impossible 
to  erase  from  them  the  prediction  of  the  .seventy  years  of 
captivity — fulfilled  to  a  year  from  the  date  of  the  first 
deportation  (606-536  B.C.).*  "  This  whole  land  shall  be  a 
desolation,  and  an  astonishment,  and  these  nations  shall 
serve  the  king  of  Babylon  seventy  years.  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  when  seventy  years  are  accomplished,  that  I 
will  punish  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  that  nation,  saith 
Jehovah,  for  their  iniquity,  and  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans ; 
and  I  will  make  it  desolate  for  ever."  *  The  second  portion 
of  Isaiah  is  assigned  to  the  exile ;  but  it  is  not  in  the  second 
portion,  but  in  the  first,  a  hundred  and  twenty  years  before 
the  exile  (contemporary  with  Micah),  that  we  find  this 
remarkable  prediction  of  the  captivity :  "  Then  said  I,  Lord, 
how  long  ?  And  He  answered,  Until  cities  be  waste  with- 
out inhabitant,  and  houses  without  man,  and  the  laud 
become  utterly  waste,  and  Jehovah  have  removed  men  far 
away.  .  .  .  And  if  there  be  yet  a  tenth  in  it,  it  shall  again 
be  eaten  up :  as  a  terebinth,  and  as  an  oak,  whose  stock 
remaineth,  when  they  are  felled :  so  the  holy  seed  is  the 
stock  thereof."4  And  again,  when  Hezekiah  had  showed 
his  treasures  to  the  messengers  of  the  king  of  Babylon : 
"  Behold  the  days  come,  that  all  that  is  in  thine  house,  and 
that  which  thy  fathers  have  laid  up  in  store  until  this  day, 
fthall  be  carried  into  Babylon :  nothing  shall  be  left,  saith 
Jehovah."*  Even  accepting  the  view  that  the  second  part  of 

1  Mic.  Hi.  12  ;  iv.  10.  There  seems  no  ground,  except  the  prophecy 
iUrlf,  for  challenging  the  prnuinenea*  of  these  pawagwi.  Of.  Davidson, 
».  T.  Prophecy,  p.  264  ;  Orelli.  Minor  PraphtU,  p.  206.  See  below,  p.  464. 

1  Then  would  be  no  objection  to  taking  the  number  as  u  round  number, 
but,  reckoning  from  the  initial  deportation  under  Jchoiakim  in  606  B.C. 
(«-f.  2  King*  xxir.  1  ;  2  Cbron.  xxxvi  6ff.  ;  Dan.  L  Iff.),  it  seems  to  be 
exact. 

3  Jer.  xx».  11,  12. 

4  Isa.  ri.  11-18.     Cf.  the  K.V.  margin  of  ver.  18  :  "  Hut  yet  in  it  ahall 
1«  a  Until,  and  it  shall  return,  and  Khali  be  eaten  up."     See  the  remarks  of 
Professor  0.  A.  Smith,  Isaiah,  i.  pp.  403-4. 

•  Isa.  xxxix.  6-7.  These  |>a.ssage»  show  that  too  much  weight  muat  not 
be  laid  on  laaiah's  supposed  belief  in  the  inviolability  of  Zion. 


458  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

Isaiah  (chaps.  xl.-lxvi.)  is  post-exilian — though  we  think  this 
extremely  doubtful  at  least  for  portions  of  it J — we  do  not 
thereby  get  rid  of  prediction.  Cyrus  may  already,  as  the 
phrase  is,  have  been  "  above  the  horizon  "  when  the  prophet 
wrote,  pursuing  his  conquests  in  the  north ;  but  the  most 
brilliant  part  of  his  career  was  yet  to  come.  Mighty  Babylon 
had  not  yet  fallen,2  nor  had  Israel  been  restored.  But  it  is 
these  things  which  form  the  burden  of  the  prophecy.  We 
cannot,  moreover,  but  be  struck  by  the  fact  that  it  is  pre- 
cisely in  this  second  part  of  Isaiah  that  the  fulfilment  of 
prophecy  is  insisted  on  as  the  clearest  proof  that  Jehovah  is 
the  true  and  only  God.3  Daniel  is  a  book  keenly  assailed  by 
the  critics,  and  undoubtedly  presents  difficulties  on  the  view 
that  it  was  written  in  its  present  form  in  Daniel's  own  age.4 
Yet,  on  any  theory  of  date,  one  cannot  but  feel  that  it  is 
only  by  forced  and  unnatural  shifts — such  as  would  not  be 
tolerated  for  a  moment  in  the  "  traditional "  apologist — that 
an  interpretation  of  the  "  four  empires "  can  be  got  which 
does  not  include  the  Eoman,5  or  that  makes  the  "  seventy 
weeks,"  or  four  hundred  and  ninety  years,  of  Daniel,  end 
in  the  age  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (171-164  B.C.).6  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  the  case  that,  reckoning  from  the  decree  of 
Artaxerxes  and  the  mission  of  Ezra  (458  B.C.),  the  sixty-nine 
weeks  that  were  to  elapse  till  "  the  anointed  one  (Messiah) 
the  prince"  (Dan.  ix.  26),  run  out  in  29  A.D.,  the  year  of 
Christ's  entrance  on  His  public  ministry.  If  to  these  be 

1  The  question  of  the  authorship  of  this  second  part  of  Isaiah  is  one 
which,  as  Professor  G.  A.  Smith  truly  says,  "  can  be  looked  at  calmly.     It 
touches  no  dogma  of  the  Christian  faith." — Isaiah,  i.  p.  402.     The  question, 
however,  becomes  more  complicated  when  the  second  part  also  is  broken  up, 
and  it  is  recognised  that  there  are  at  least  some  sections  of  the  latter  which 
cannot,  with  any  plausibility,  be  placed  in  the  exile  (e.fj.,  chaps.  Ivii.,  Iviii., 
Ixv.  etc.).     See  Note  B  on  the  Unity  of  Second  Isaiah. 

2  Isa.  xiii.,  e.g.,  is  a  limelight  prophetic  picture  of  that  catastrophe,  but 
it  is  not  suggested  that  it  was  written  after  the  event. 

3  Isa.  xli.  21-23,  26-28  ;  xliii.  9-12  ;  xliv.  7,  8,  25-28  ;  xlv.  11,  19,  21  ; 
xlvi.   9  ;  xlviii.   3-7,  14-16.      Cf.    A.    B.   Davidson,    0.  T.    Prophecy,   pp. 
97,  294. 

4  See  above,    p.  428.      The  chief  difficulty  is  the  extremely  detailed 
character  of  the  prediction  in  chap,  xi.,  which,  on  so  large  a  scale,  is  out 
ol"  harmony  with  the  analogy  of  prophecy  elsewhere,  and  may  point  to  later 
redaction. 

8  Dan.  ii.  31  ff.  ;  vii.  1  ff. 

6  Dan.  ix.  24  ff.  On  the  divergent  views  on  these  prophecies,  cf.  Driver, 
Daniel,  pp.  94  ff.  ;  143  ff.;  Pusey,  Daniel,  pp.  91  ff.,  171,  197-217.  See 
Note  C  on  the  Prophecies  of  Daniel. 


THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    459 

added  the  prophecies  about  the  nations,  which  fill  so  large 
a  space  in  the  books  —  the  prophecy  of  Nahum  against 
Nineveh,  e.g.,  or  the  prophecies  against  Egypt,  Babylon, 
Tyre,  and  other  surrounding  kingdoms  *  —  above  all,  the 
predictions  respecting  the  captivities  and  future  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  their  scattering  through  all  lands,  yet  preser- 
vation as  a  distinct  people,  with  promises  of  latter-day 
restoration*  and  blessing — we  have  a  mass  of  prediction, 
not  soothsaying,  but  all  of  it  standing  in  strictest  subordina- 
tion to  the  ends  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which,  taken 
together,  is  absolutely  unique,  and  wholly  inexplicable  except 
under  supernatural  conditions.  The  element  of  prediction 
is  not  less  conspicuously  present  in  the  New  Testament. 
Many  of  the  parables,  announcements,  and  discourses  of 
Jesus  are  predictive — we  instance  only  the  great  discourse 
on  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  last  things;8  pre- 
diction is  interwoven  with  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  *  and 
with  the  Epistles ; 5  the  Apocalypse  is  a  book  of  prediction  in 
symbolic  form.6  If  everything  of  the  nature  of  predictive 
prophecy  is  expunged  from  the  Bible,  it  will  astonish  us  to 
find  how  much  has  gone  with  it 

Allusion  was  made  in  an  earlier  chapter7  to  what  is 
distinctively  known  as  Messianic  prophecy,  and,  in  con- 
nection therewith,  to  the  firm  assurance  which  the  prophets 
entertained  that  their  religion — the  religion  of  Jehovah — 
would  become  the  religion  of  the  whole  earth.  This  faith 
they  held  fast  when  everything  was  against  them — when 
their  own  nation,  with  which  the  promises  were  bound  up, 
was  sinking  in  ruin,  or  was  in  exile.  Yet  this  un]>i 
dented  thing  has  been  fulfilled,  so  far,  at  least,  that  I-:ar] '< 
religion,  in  its  New  Testament  form,  has  now  become  the 
religion  of  all  the  great  civilised  and  progressive  nations  of 
the  world,  and  is  spreading  itself  ever  more  widely  in  heathen 

1  Knenen  and  others  content  the  fulfilment  of  some  of  these  predictions. 
8«Kote  D  in  Kuenen  on  Unfulfilled  Prophecies. 

'It  will  be  seen  below  (p.  494)  that  nothing  can  now  be  inferred  ss  to 
the  precise  form  in  which  these  prophecies  will  be  fulfilled.  See  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  subject  in  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson's  O.  T.  Prophecy,  pp.  468  ff. 

1  Matt.  ixiv.  Dr.  Davidson  says  :  "So  far  as  w»  see,  prediction  was 
actually  an  elrmrtit  in  the  activity  of  most  of  the  prophets,  eveu  in  that  of 
the  prophet  of  Nazareth  "—0.  T.  Prophtty,  p.  89. 

4  E.g.,  Acts  xi.  27-30 :  xxi.  10,  11  ;  xxvii.  10,  21,  ±J. 

•  E.g.,  Rom.  xi.  28,  24  ;  2  Thess.  ii.  1-10. 

•  Key.  L  1-3.  »  Cf.  above,  p.  34. 


460  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

lands.  On  Messianic  prophecy  in  the  stricter  sense  it  is 
worth  while  quoting  some  striking  sentences  from  Professor 
E.  Flint.  After  remarking  on  the  "  marvellous  unity,  self- 
consistency,  and  comprehensiveness  "  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  pointing  out  that  "it  is  at  the  same  time  a  system 
which  is  not  self-contained,  but  one  of  which  all  the  parts 
contribute,  each  in  its  place,  to  raise,  sustain,  and  guide 
faith  in  the  coming  of  a  mysterious  and  mighty  Saviour — a 
perfect  Prophet,  perfect  Priest,  and  perfect  King,  such  as 
Christ  alone  of  all  men  can  be  supposed  to  have  been," 
Professor  Flint  goes  on  to  say :  "  This  broad  general  fact—- 
this vast  and  strange  correlation  of  correspondence — cannot 
be  in  the  least  affected  by  questions  of  the  '  higher  criti- 
cism '  as  to  the  authorship,  time  of  origination,  and  mode 
of  composition  of  the  various  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
.  .  .  Answer  all  these  questions  in  the  way  which  the 
boldest  and  most  rationalistic  criticism  of  Germany  or 
Holland  ventures  to  suggest;  accept  in  every  properly 
critical  question  the  conclusions  of  the  most  advanced 
critical  schools,  and  what  will  follow  ?  Merely  this,  that 
those  who  do  so  will  have,  in  various  respects,  to  alter  their 
views  as  to  the  manner  and  method  in  which  the  ideal  of 
the  Messiah's  Person,  work,  and  kingdom  was,  point  by 
point,  line  by  line,  evolved  and  elaborated.  There  will  not, 
however,  be  a  single  Messianic  word  or  sentence,  not  a 
single  line  or  feature  the  fewer  in  the  Old  Testament." l 

III.  HUMAN  CONDITIONING  OF  PROPHECY — CANONS  OF 
INTERPRETATION 

Prophecy,  if  it  has  its  origin  in  God,  has,  nevertheless, 
its  human  side.  It  comes  to  us  through  the  mind,  faculties, 
speech,  of  particular  individuals,  living  at  a  particular  time, 
and  variously  conditioned  by  a  particular  experience. 
Keeping  this  human  or  psychological  side  of  prophecy  in 
view,  we  can  readily  explain  a  difference  which  the  atten- 
tive reader  must  observe  between  predictions  of  events 
belonging  to  the  prophet's  immediate  future, — not  giving 
ttiis  phrase  too  restricted  a  sense, — and  predictions  that 
Klretch  beyond  this  limit,  and  relate  to  events  yet  remote 

1  St.  Giles  Lecture  (Edinburgh)  on  "Christianity  in  Relation  to  other 
Religions."     Cf.  Dr.  Pat.  Fairbairn,  Prophecy,  pp.  229  ff. 


THE  PROGREaSIVBNISe  OF  REVELATION    461 

and  indefinable.  Predictions  of  the  former  class  might  be, 
and  often  were,  quite  definite  and  precise.  Thus  Isaiah 
predicted  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army ;  announced 
to  Hezekiah  that  God  had  added  to  his  life  fifteen  years.1 
Jeremiah  predicted  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  the 
Chaldeans,  the  fates  of  Jehoiakim  and  Zedekiah,  the  seventy 
years'  captivity.*  But  it  is  different  as  the  event  recedes 
into  the  future,  loses  its  point  of  connection  with  the 
historic  present,  above  all,  belongs  to  an  order  of  things, 
higher  and  more  spiritual,  for  which  the  existing  conditions 
offer  no  sufficient  analogy.  Vision  of  the  future  is  not 
magically  effected  ;  the  future  is  presented  as  an  evolution 
from  the  historically  existing ;  and,  where  that  connection 
fails,  prediction  must  necessarily  take \  on  a  more  general 
and  ideal  character.  While,  therefore,  prediction  of  the 
immediate  future  is  relatively  definite,  the  vision  of  events 
more  remote — especially  of  those  belonging  to  the  consum- 
mation of  God's  kingdom — becomes  more  general  in  form, 
and  greater  freedom  is  allowed  in  shaping  it  in  symbol  and 
metaphor.  The  idea  becomes  the  main  thing ;  the  particular 
form  of  the  idea — the  clothing  of  iuuignry  or  detail  it 

:vcs — is  less  essential.  There  is  even  here,  no  doubt, 
Lrreat  difference  of  degree.  Under  the  guidance  of  the 
divine  Spirit,  prophecy  is  sometimes  quite  startling  in  the 
individuality  and  definiteness  of  its  prediction  of  even 
remote  events.*  The  general  principle,  however,  is  un- 
deniably as  we  have  stated  it,  and  from  it  three  things 
follow  which  are  of  great  importance  as  canons  in  the  right 
interpretation  of  prophecy  of  the  future. 

1.  It  follows  from  what  has  been  said  that,  in  the 
prediction  of  distant  events  to  which  existing  conditions  no 
longer  apply,  there  is  no  alternative  but  that  these  should 
be  presented  in  the  forms  of  the  present.  This  is  a  principle 

>  I«a.  xxxTiii.  5. 

•  Jer.  xxii.  18,  19  ;  XXT.  ;  xxxviii.  14  ff.  etc.  Cf.  the  instances  in  Acts 
nbore  cited. 

'  We  cannot  reekon  it  M  accidental,  e.g.,  that  O.T.  prophecy  pointed 
no  definitely  to  Bethlehem  a*  the  place  of  the  Mrwuh'*  birth  (ilic,  v.  2), 
or  to  the  peculiarity  of  Hi-  birth  from  a  woman  >  I.«a.  vji.  14  ;  Mic.  v.  3). 
<  T  I»n  !-!*>n,  O.T.  rrnvhtry,  pp.  SM».  362  :  Dr.  Pat.  Fair-bairn,  JVtjAML 
!  p.  230-31.  Dr.  Dtri<U»n  nay* :  "When  we  consider  t  Imt  Christianity  u 
thr  Umie  of  the  prior  Old  Testament  period,  it  is  not  improbable,  ft  is 
rather  to  be  expected,  that  hints  should  nare  been  given  even  of  its  greatest 
mysteries  "  (p.  369). 


462  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

which  runs  through  all  prophecy  where  the  future  state  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  concerned.  It  would  have  served 
no  end,  and  is,  under  ordinary  conditions,  psychologically 
inconceivable,  that  the  prophet  should  have  been  lifted 
out  of  all  the  forms  of  his  existing  consciousness,  and 
transported  into  conditions  utterly  strange  and  inappre- 
hensible by  him.  Such  a  revelation  would,  in  any  case, 
have  been  incommunicable  to  others.1  We  have,  in  the 
earthly  condition,  the  same  difficulty  in  picturing  to  our- 
selves the  conditions  of  a  heavenly  state.  But,  just  as 
supersensible  realities  cannot  be  conceived  or  spoken  of  by 
us  except  under  forms  of  symbol  or  figure  drawn  from 
earthly  relations,  so  prophecy  of  the  future,  or  of  a  better 
dispensation,  must  necessarily  picture  that  future,  or  those 
new  conditions,  in  forms  drawn  from  the  present.2  The 
kingdom  of  God,  e.g.,  in  the  Messianic  age,  is  still  figured 
as  a  theocracy  with  Jerusalem  as  a  centre ;  the  nations 
come  up  to  it  to  worship ;  the  enemies  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  are  figured  under  the  old  names — Egypt,  Babylon, 
Edom,  etc. ;  the  converted  nations  are  these  same  powers.3 
How  far  the  prophet  himself  was  able  to  distinguish  the 
symbol  from  the  idea  is  a  secondary  question.  In  some 
cases,  at  least,  the  idea  is  clearly  seen  breaking  through  the 
symbol,  and  transcending  it.4 

2.  A  second  principle  of  interpretation  relates  to  the 
element  of  time  in  prophecy.  Here  the  fact  to  be  remem- 
bered is,  that  the  one  thing  immovably  certain  to  the 
prophet— that  with  which  he  starts — is  not  the  way  by 
which  the  goal  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  to  be  reached,  but 

1  Cf.  Paul's  experience  in  2  Cor.  xii.  1-4.  It  is  wrong  to  view  the 
prophetic  consciousness  as  ordinarily  a  state  of  ecstasy. 

*  Excellent  remarks  on  this  subject  will  be  found  in  the  work  above 
noted,  Dr.  Pat  Fairbairn's  Prophecy,  pp.  154  ff.,  160  ff. 

8  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson,  therefore,  puts  the  matter  too  sharply  when  he 
says  :  "  Such  terras  in  the  prophets  are  always  to  be  taken  in  their  literal, 
natural  sense  "  (p.  167).  His  own  words  furnish  the  necessary  correction. 
"No  doubt,  they  occasionally  broke  through  the  atmosphere  of  their  own 
dispensation,  and  soared  into  regions  higher  and  purer  "  (p.  167  ;  cf.  p.  391). 
"  When  he  says  that  Egypt  shall  be  a  desolation  and  the  like,  he  means 
that  the  euemies  of  God's  kingdom  shall  certainly  then,  or  ere  then,  be  all 
quite  destroyed,"  etc.  (pp.  180,  187). 

*  E.g.,  such  statements  as  Isa.  ii.  2  :  "The  mountain  of  Jehovah's  house 
shall  be  established  in  the  top  of  the  mountains,"  etc.,  are  plainly  poetic 
and  figurative  ;  and  the  description  of  the  flowing  waters  in  Ezekiel's  vision 
of  the  temple  (chap,  xlvii.)  can  hardly  be  intended  to  be  taken  literally. 


THE  PKOGIU>M\  i.\i>s  OF  REVELATION   463 

the  goal  itself.  Whatever  might  betide  in  the  interval, 
tin-re  is  no  dubiety  about  that  ;  God's  purpose  shall  be 
fulfilled,  His  kingdom  shall  triumph,  righteousness  shall  be 
supreme,  and  shall  fill  the  earth.  Whatever  opposes  itself 
to  God's  kingdom  and  resists  it  shall  be  shattered.  How- 
ever proud  and  powerful  wickedness  may  be,  there  ia  "  a 
day  of  Jehovah  '  coming  —  a  judgment-day,  when  God's 
righteousness  shall  be  vindicated.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
steps  by  which  this  consummation  is  to  be  reached  are  only 
gradually  unfolded,  as  the  course  of  providence  prepares 
the  way  for  the  discovery  of  them.  Hence  arises  the 
feature  so  common  in  prophecy,  that  the  consummation,  or 
some  phase  of  it,  is  the  immediate  background  of  the  series 
of  events  in  which  the  prophet  is  himself  involved  :  of  the 
Assyrian  invasion,  of  the  return  from  exile,  of  the  Macca- 
baean  deliverance,  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.1  That 
is  the  one  event  which  in  prophetic  perspective  is  always 
near  ;  for  which  all  events  are  preparing  ;  to  which  they  are 
hastening  on.  Hence  the  fact  that  in  prophetic  vision 
extending  into  the  distant  future  so  little  place  is  given  the 
element  of  time.  There  are  exceptions  to  this  rule  —  some- 
times time-measures,  as  Jeremiah's  seventy  years,  or  Daniel's 
seventy  weeks,  are  very  definite.  But  ordinarily  time  is  a 
quite  secondary  element.  Events  are  grasped  in  their  ideal 
relations,  in  their  implication  with  one  another  as  conducing 
to  the  final  result,  and  not  in  their  empirical  succession. 
Prophecy  is  not,  as  Butler  described  it,  history  written  before- 
hand, but  the  seizing  of  the  inner  meaning  and  the  greater 
stadia  of  things,  and  the  presenting  of  future  developments 
in  such  graphic  and  pictorial  forms  as  will  best  impress  the 
imagination  and  move  ttie  heart. 

3.  The  third   principle  is  that   there  is  a  condition*! 
in  prophecy.    Expressed  or  implied,  this  element 


is  ever  present,  and  ought  not  to  be  overlooked  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  prophecy.  The  most  explicit  utterance  of  this 
principle  is  found  in  Jeremiah  :  "At  what  instant  I  (Jehovah) 
shall  speak  concerning  a  nation,  and  concerning  a  kingdom, 
to  pluck  up  and  to  break  down  and  to  destroy  it  ;  if  that 
nation,  concerning  which  I  have  spoken,  turn  from  their 
evil,  I  will  repent  of  the  evil  that  I  thought  to  do  unto 

1  The  Mine  appliee  to,  and  in  part  explains,  New  Testament  representa- 
tion* of  the  Parouiia  (aee  below). 


464  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

them.  And  at  what  instant  I  shall  speak  concerning  a 
nation,  and  concerning  a  kingdom,  to  build  and  to  plant  it; 
if  it  do  evil  in  my  sight  that  it  obey  not  my  voice,  then  I 
will  repent  of  the  good  wherewith  I  said  that  I  would  benefit 
them."1  This  obviously  has  an  important  bearing  on  the 
time  and  manner  of  fulfilment.  Often,  as  in  the  case  of 
Jonah's  preaching  to  Nineveh,  the  object  of  the  prophecy 
is  to  avert  fulfilment.  A  striking  instance  is  given  in  the 
Book  of  Jeremiah  itself  of  how  fulfilment  of  Micah's 
prophecy  against  Jerusalem  was  delayed  because  of 
Hezekiah's  repentance.2  Jesus,  too,  said  of  Jerusalem : 
"  How  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together 
.  .  .  and  ye  would  not!  Behold,  your  house  is  left  unto 
you  desolate."3  Human  repentance  may  thus  avert  pre- 
dicted judgment ;  human  intercession  may  delay  or  modify 
it ;  human  fidelity  will  hasten,  as,  on  the  other  hand,  human 
unfaithfulness  will  retard,  accomplishment  of  promise.  The 
glowing  predictions  'of  the  prophets  as  to  what  God  would 
do  for  Israel — even  those  which  were  never  literally  fulfilled 
— were  not  illusions.  They  held  up  truly  what  God  was 
wishful  to  do  for  Israel,  and  would  have  done,  had  the  con- 
ditions, on  their  part,  been  present.  It  does  not  follow  that 
a  day  of  fulfilment  will  not  come,  but  when  it  arrives,  it 
will  be  under  new  conditions,  and  in  a  new  form.*  In  a 
deeply  important  sense  the  same  applies  to  the  New 
Testament  hope  of  the  Lord's  Coming.  There  is  a  human 
conditioning  even  here.  When  the  Church  prays,  "Thy 
kingdom  come,"  it  implicitly  acknowledges  that  it  has  a 
certain  responsibility  for  the  hastening  or  retarding  of 
that  coming.  Had  the  Church  been  more  faithful — or 
were  it  more  faithful  now — the  consummation  would  be 

1  Jer.  xviii.  7-10.  2  Jer.  xxvi.  17-19. 

»  Matt,  xxiii.  37,  38. 

4  Delitzsch  has  some  remarks  on  this  point  in  connection  with  Ezekiel's 
prophecies.  "The  condition,"  he  says,  "remained  unfulfilled,  and  so  with 
it  also  the  prophecy.  For  the  grace  of  God  does  not  work  magically,  and 
prophecy  is  no  fate.  It  is  with  the  promises  as  it  is  with  the  aims  of  God's 
grace :  they  are  too  often  shattered  on  the  resistance  of  man  ;  as,  on  the 
other  hand,  also,  His  threatenings  are  taken  back  if  the  threatened  antici- 
pate their  fulfilment  by  repentance  ;  for  the  free  will  of  the  creature  is  no 
mere  show,  and  history  no  play  of  marionettes.  Tne  fulfilment  of  many 
prophecies  moves  from  the  appointed  time  into  the  future,  and  remains  in 
reserve  for  that :  the  fulfilment  of  others  is  overtaken  by  the  advancing 
history  of  salvation,  and  for  that  reason  becomes  impossible,  at  least  in  the 
externality  of  their  content." — Lutbardt's  Zeitschnft,  1880,  pp.  280-81. 


THE  rK<H,liKSSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    465 

nearer ;  we  might  not  still  have  been  asking,  "  Where  it*  the 
promise  of  His  Coming  ? " l 


PART  III 

THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION — MORAL 
DIFFICULTIES 

It  would  be  unfitting  to  close  this  discussion  of  the 
problems  of  the  Old  Testament  without  a  glance  at  the 
question  of  the  progressiveness  of  revelation,  in  its  bearings 
on  those  "  moral  difficulties  "  which  are  a  chief  stumbling- 
block  to  many  in  considering  the  claims  of  the  revelation. 
That  revelation  is  progressive — has  its  less  developed  and 
more  developed  stages — has  been  assumed  throughout,  and 
is  generally  admitted.  But  the  precise  mode  of  application 
of  this  principle  of  progressiveness  to  the  solution  of  the 
ethical  difficulties  is  not  always  clearly  apprehended,  and 
needs  careful  statement 

I.  NATURE  ANP  ORIGIN  OF  THE  MORAL  DIFFICULTIES 

There  would  be  no  difficulty,  possibly,  in  connection  with'- 
the  progressiveness  of  revelation,  if  the  progress  in  question 
were  simply  one  of  development  in  moral  knowledge — of 
growth  from  a  more  or  less  childlike  consciousness  of  moral 
truths  to  2  stage  of  greater  maturity.  The  matter  becomes 
more  complicated  when  we  observe  that  it  is  also  in  part 
the  growth  of  a  higher  out  of  a  lower  morality,  and  that  the 
lower  stages  involve  much  which  to  the  enlightened  con- 
science at  the  higher  stage  is  positively  evil  It  is  here 
that  ethical  difficulties  emerge.  When  we  go  back  to  the 
earlier  stages  of  Old  Testament  revelation — or  even  to  the 
Old  Testament  as  a  whole — we  find,  co-existing  with  the 
knowledge  and  worship  of  the  true  God,  with  a  high  sense 
of  the  general  obligations  of  righteousness,  and  with  what 
we  must  recognise  as  great  nobility  of  religious  character, 
many  things  which  perplex  and  stagger  us.  We  find 
defects  in  the  idea  of  duty,  as  measured  by  a  later  standard, 
the  non-recognition  of  principles  of  conduct  which  to  us  are 

>  2  Pet  iiL  4. 
3° 


466  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

self-evident,  institutions  and  usages  which  the  enlightened 
Christian  conscience  would  not  tolerate,  things  regarded  as 
permissible  or  right  which  we  as  emphatically  pronounce 
wrong.  For  instance,  there  is  in  the  Old  Testament  slavery 
and  polygamy,  there  is  blood-revenge,  there  is  a  low  standard 
— not  in  the  law,  indeed,  but  in  individuals — of  sexual 
morality,  there  is  the  cursing  of  enemies,  there  is  merciless- 
ness  in  warfare,  in  the  case  of  the  Canaanites  there  is  the 
extermination  of  whole  populations.  It  is  possible,  no 
doubt,  to  set  all  this  in  an  exaggerated  and  distorted  light, 
and  this,  as  we  shall  see,  is  sometimes  done.  The  "moral 
difficulties"  are  no  new  discovery.  They  were  worked  for 
all  they  were  worth  a  century  and  a  half  ago  in  the 
Deistical  controversy,  and  many  sensible  and  temperate 
replies  then  appeared  to  the  attacks  on  the  Old  Testament 
based  on  them.1  Little  can  be  said  now  which  was  not  said, 
with  far  keener  edge,  by  a  Chubb,  a  Morgan,  or  a  Bolingbroke. 
But  when  every  allowance  for  exaggeration  or  animus  is 
made,  we  cannot  but  recognise  that  a  very  real  problem 
remains. 

The  difficulty  even  here,  it  is  next  to  be  observed,  is  not 
so  much  that  such  lower  stages  of  morality  should  exist,  and 
should  need  to  be  overcome — that  is  only  to  be  expected 
— as  that  the  defects  in  idea  and  practice  cleave  to  the 
organs  of  revelation  themselves, — that  these  share  in,  and 
give  expression  to,  the  same  views  as  their  contemporaries, 
— that  they  do  this  sometimes  when  speaking  in  the  name 
of  God, — nay,  that  God  Himself  is  represented  by  them  as 
implicated  in,  and  as  sanctioning,  these  lower  forms  of 
morality.  Thus  Abraham  receives  from  God  a  command  to 
sacrifice  his  son  Isaac ;  Deborah,  a  prophetess,  pronounces 
Jael  blessed  for  her  treacherous  murder  of  Sisera ;  the  Mosaic 
legislation  provides  for  slavery,  polygamy,  and  divorce ;  the 
command  to  exterminate  the  Canaanites  is  represented  as 
coming  directly  from  God,  and  the  Israelites  are  even  re- 
proved for  not  executing  it  with  sufficient  thoroughness;2 
David,  or  whoever  was  the  writer,  invokes  curses  on  his 
enemies,  and  prays  for  their  destruction.  It  is,  in  these  and 
other  cases,  the  apparent  implication  of  God  in  the  lower 

1  Lelami's  View  of  the  Deistical  Writers,  and  Divine  Authority  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament  (in  reply  to  Morgan),  may  still  be  usefully  consulted. 
1  Judg.  ii.  1-3. 


THE  PROGRESS  \1AI>-  or  HK\  KLATION    467 

morality,  or  seeming  immorality,  which  causes  the  difficulty. 
The  morality  of  man  may  and  must  progress ;  the  morality 
prescribed  by  God  should,  we  naturally  think,  be  one  and 
the  same  throughout.  How,  on  the  assumption  of  the  reality 
of  the  revelation,  can  we  vindicate  the  divine  action  ? 

II.  ERRONEOUS  OR  INADEQUATE  SOLUTIONS 

In  facing  this  problem,  our  first  duty  is  to  beware  of 
solutions  which  are  not  really,  or  only  very  partially,  such. 
It  is,  for  example,  no  solution  simply  to  use  this  word 
"  progressiveness,"  as  if  that  of  itself  removed  the  difficulty. 
It  is  true  that  revelation  must  be  progressive ;  but  it  may 
be  felt  that  what  applies  to  the  taught  need  not  apply  to 
the  teacher — that  God  should  not  be  implicated  in  any 
form  of  sanction  of  what  is  wrong. 

Again,  we  do  not  solve  the  problem  by  denying  that  these 
inner  forms  of  morality  were,  for  that  age  and  stage  of 
development,  really  wrong,  or  did  involve  elements  of  evil. 
Evolution  may  be  invoked  to  show  that  there  are  numerous 
intermediate  grades  between  no  morality  and  the  highest 
morality ;  that  society  must  pass  through  such  and  such 
stages  of  growth;  that  the  moral  ideal  is  only  gradually 
developed,  and  that,  till  it  is  developed,  such  practices  as 
slavery,  polygamy,  unchastity,  mercilessness  in  war,  etc., 
are  not  really  sinful ;  that  there  can  be  no  wrong,  therefore, 
in  recognising  and  sanctioning  them.  This,  like  the  whole 
evolutionary  conception  of  a  necessary  development  of 
humanity  through  evil,  is  a  dangerous  line  of  defence ;  is, 
moreover,  repugnant  to  the  genuine  Christian  point  of  view. 
Jesus  did  not,  e.g.,  regard  the  Mosaic  law  of  divorce  as 
}>er  se  right  even  for  the  Jews.  It  was  given  them,  He  said, 
for  the  hardness  of  their  hearts,  and  He  referred  them  back 
to  the  purer  primitive  idea  of  marriage.1  Slavery,  from  the 
Christian  standpoint,  is  a  contradiction  of  the  true  idea  of 
man,  as  God  made  him,  and  meant  him  to  exist  :*  is,  there- 
fore, something  inherently  wrong,  under  whatever  cir- 
cumstances, or  at  whatever  stage  in  the  history  of  mankind, 
it  occurs. 

1  Matt  zix.  8-9. 

*  Gen.  i.  26,  27  ;  and  •««  the  ground  of  the  prohibition  of  shedding  man's 
blood,  Gen.  ix.  6. 


463  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

Shall  we  betake  ourselves,  then,  to  what  may  be  called 
the  critical  solution — viz.,  the  denying  outright  that  God 
had  any  implication  in  the  matter,  and  the  ascribing  of 
those  laws  and  statements  in  the  Bible  which  impute  such 
participation  in  evil  to  God  to  the  mistaken  notions  of  the 
Biblical  writers  themselves  ?  Either  the  narratives  are  held 
to  be  legends,  or  they  are  supposed  to  reflect  only  the  ideas  of 
the  writers ;  in  any  case,  the  attribution  of  the  laws  and  com- 
mands which  create  offence  to  Jehovah  as  their  Author  has 
no  foundation  in  reality.  What  the  leaders  of  Israel — a 
Moses,  a  Joshua,  a  Samuel — or  the  writers  of  their  histories, 
ascribed  to  God  of  a  nature  which  we  think  wrong,  came 
really  from  their  own  imperfect  thoughts  and  feelings,  and 
God  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  Thus  God  is  thought  to  be 
exonerated  from  participation  in  everything  that  offends 
the  moral  sense.  Such  a  view  may  plausibly  be  held  to  be 
a  necessary  corollary  from  the  admission  of  growth  in 
religion  and  moral  ideas.  For  how,  it  may  be  asked,  can  a 
writer  avoid  colouring  his  narrative  in  accordance  with 
the  idea  of  God  he  himself  possesses,  representing  Jehovah  as 
sanctioning  or  approving  of  those  things  which  he  thinks  He 
must  approve  of,  and  as  condemning  those  things  which  he 
— the  author — reprobates  ?  The  writer's  own  standard  of 
religion  and  morality  would  seem  to  be  the  inevitable 
measure  of  the  representations  in  his  history. 

This  method  of  treatment  no  doubt  frees  God  from 
responsibility  for  anything  in  the  record  which  appears 
objectionable, — Origen  of  old  attained  the  same  end  by 
"  allegorising  "  all  such  passages, — but  the  solution  has  the 
disadvantage  that  it  is  a  cutting  of  the  knot,  not  a  loosing 
of  it,  for  it  denies  the  chief  factor  in  the  problem — the 
reality  of  the  revelation.  Neither  do  we,  even  in  this  way, 
really  get  rid  of  the  difficulty.  We  may  relieve  the  earlier 
history  of  laws  and  commands  of  God  which  offend  us; 
but  it  is  only  to  roll  the  burden  upon  the  shoulders  of 
prophets  in  an  age  when  the  higher  morality  is  presumed  to 
be  developed.  The  strongest  injunctions,  e.g.,  to  destroy 
the  Canaanites  are  found  in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy — on 
the  theory  of  the  critics,  a  prophetic  work  of  the  seventh 
century  B.C.,  and  the  most  drastic  accounts  of  the  carrying 
out  of  these  injunctions  are  those  put  to  the  account  of  the 
Deuteronomic  revision  of  the  Book  of  Joshua,  the  date  of 


THE  PKOGRESSn  ENESS  OF  REVELATION    469 

which  is  still  later.  It  is  not  the  early  Hebrews  only,  there- 
fore, who  hold  these  imperfect  views  of  God ;  but  the  prophets 
themselves,  who  are  assumed  to  represent  the  more  advanced 
stage  of  religion  and  morality,  and  to  be  the  peculiar 
exponents  of  the  higher  Old  Testament  revelation,  share  in 
them,  and  put  their  imprimatur  upon  them.  God's  Spirit 
in  the  prophets,  if  not  in  the  history,  still  seems  implicated 
in  what  is  wrong. 

Difficulties  exist ;  but  it  is  a  pity  to  add  to  them,  as  is 
occasionally  done,  by  unnecessarily  lowering  the  character, 
and  limiting  the  scope,  of  early  Old  Testament  morality, 
even  if  it  be  with  the  aim  of  magnifying  the  divine 
leading  in  Israel  in  the  evolving  of  higher  conceptions. 
Here  again  comes  in  the  tendency  to  exaggeration,  as  when 
it  is  affirmed  that  early  Israel  had  no  sense  of  personal  right 
or  responsibility,  no  feeling  of  humanity  or  mercy  for  those 
outside  its  own  circle,  no  compunctions  about  falsehood  and 
fraud,  etc.  It  could  easily  be  shown  that,  despite  all  marks 
of  a  lower  stage,  the  moral  standard  among  the  Hebrews 
maintained  its  unique,  and,  in  ancient  times,  unapproached, 
distinction.1  It  is  unfair,  e.g.,  to  say  with  a  recent  writer, 
that  "  the  Hebrews  were  bound  by  moral  obligation  and  the 
sanction  of  religion  in  their  dealings  with  one  another,  but 
were  entirely  free  of  these  in  their  dealings  with  foreigners," 
and  that  "  in  the  latter  case  they  were  governed  purely  by 
considerations  of  expediency."2  This  is  not  borne  out  by 
the  instances  quoted,  and  is  disproved  by  the  recognition  of 
common  principles  of  justice  and  morality  by  which  all 
men  are  judged.  Where  universal  principles  of  moral 
conduct  are  recognised,  there  arises  of  necessity  the  sense 
of  mutual  obligation ;  and  such  are  found,  not  only  in  Israel, 
but  in  all  ancient  nations.3  It  is  the  postulate  of  the  whole 
Biblical  view  of  history  that  the  world  is  under  moral  govern- 
ment, and  that  individuals,  communities,  and  nations, 
everywhere,  are  judged  and  punished  for  wickedness.  What 
else  is  the  moral  of  the  narratives  of  the  flood,  of  the 
destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  of  the  judgment  on  the 
Canaan ites  ?  It  was  for  their  vices  that  the  Canaanitee  were 

1  See  below,  pp.  470,  475. 

s  Professor  G.  B.  Gray,  The  DitnV  Discipline  of  Israel,  p.  48. 

*  The  ethical  codes  of  Egypt  an<I  U.it>y  Ionia  show  that  common  principle* 
of  right  were  always  recognised  ;  that,  in  fact,  the  world  has  always  had  a 
great  deal  more  moral  light  than  it  well  knew  how  to  make  use  of. 


470  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

destroyed.1  The  history  is  full  of  instances  which  show  the 
recognition  of  principles  of  general  obligation.  Is  it 
credible,  e.g.,  in  view  of  his  own  words  (Gen.  xxxix.  9), 
that  Joseph  in  Egypt  was  guided  in  his  conduct  in  his 
master's  house,  or  towards  his  master's  wife,  by  no  higher 
principle  than  "expediency"?  It  was  on  grounds  of  common 
right  that  the  people  of  Israel  protested  against  their  harsh 
treatment  by  Pharaoh.2  Even  Jephthah  invokes  Jehovah, 
as  the  Judge,  to  judge  between  Israel  and  Ammon.8  It  is 
quite  true  that  the  Old  Testament  had  not  attained  to  Christ's 
wide  sense  of  the  word  "  neighbour,"  and  that  the  command 
to  love  all,  even  enemies,4  would  have  sounded  strangely  in 
the  ears  of  the  ancient  Israelite.  But  short  of  love  there  is 
justice,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  believing  that  duties  falling 
under  that  head  were  not  recognised  as  applicable  to  Gentiles 
as  well  as  to  Jews.6  Too  much,  we  would  add,  ought  not 
to  be  made  of  the  imperfect  conduct,  or  moral  lapses,  of 
individuals,  or  even  of  the  prevailing  practice  of  a  time,  as 
indicative  of  the  religious  and  moral  standard ;  else  it  would 
go  hard  with  ourselves  under  a  higher  and  purer  dispensa- 
tion.8 The  conduct  of  Judah  7  and  Samson,8  e.g.,  cannot  be 
held  to  determine  the  estimate  of  sexual  relations  in  Israel. 
In  letter,  and  even  more  in  spirit,  the  Mosaic  law  stands  for 
a  high  ideal  of  sexual  morality.9  Of  this  we  have  the 

1  Gen.  xv.  16  ;  Lev.  xviii.  24  ff. ;  Deut.  xii.  29  ff.     Cf.  Bruce,  Chief  End 
of  Revelation,  pp.  139-40. 

2  Ex.  v.  15  ff.  Judg.  xi.  27. 
4  Matt.  v.  43-45  ;  Luke  x.  29-37. 

*  If  the    Jews  (unwarrantably)  interpreted    the  precept   "Thou   shalt 
love  thy  neighbour  "  as  entitling  him  to  "hate  his  enemy,"  and  if  deceit  and 
stratagem  were  regarded  as  lawful  towards  enemies  in  war  (are  they  not 
held  to  be  so  still  ?),  it  does  not  follow  that  foreigners,  simply  as  such,  were 
viewed  as  outside  the  pale  of  moral  obligations.     The  Old  Testament  nowhere 
inculcates,  like  Plato,  "  a  pure  and  heart-felt  hatred  of  the  foreign  nature" 
(in  his  Menexenus),  or  makes  it,  as  Seeley  says  of  ancient  nations,  "almost 
as  much  a  duty  to  hate  foreigners  as  to  love  fellow-citizens"  (Ecce  Homo, 
chap.   xiv.).     Israel   has,  indeed,    from  the   first,  an  aspect  of  blessing  to 
mankind. 

8  Are  there  no  moral  scandals,   profanity,   fraud,   cursing  of  enemies, 
prayers  for  their  destruction,  etc.,  among  ourselves? 

*  Gen.  xxxviii.  8  ju(jg.  xvi. 

9  The  Mosaic  law,  which,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  is  a  code  of  juris- 
prudence, not  of  private  ethics,  surrounds  female  virtue  with  safeguards, 
and  is  stern  in  the  punishment  of  violations  of  it  (e.g.,  Ex.  xxi.  7  ff. ;  xxii. 
16,  17  ;  Deut.  xxii.  13-30) ;  is  delicate  in  its  provision  for  the  treatment  of 
even  captive  women  (Deut.   xxi.   10-14) ;  brands,  as  an  abomination,  the 
prostitution  of  women  at  the  sanctuary  (Deut.  xxiii.  17)— therefore,  in 


THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    471 

purest  expression  in  the  teachings  of  the  prophets,1  who 
here,  as  elsewhere,  do  not  claim  to  be  introducing  any- 
thing new. 

III.  GENERAL  LAWS  OF  PROGRESSIVE  EEVELATION 

We  shall  perhaps  get  nearer  the  truth  in  this  matter, 
and  conserve  what  is  of  value  in  the  above  explanations,  if, 
beginning  at  the  other  end,  we  assume  the  reality  of  revela- 
tion, and  ask  how,  and  under  what  limitations,  revelation 
could  enter  into  such  a  history  as  man's.  We  shall  not 
assume  that  the  development  is  normal ;  on  the  contrary, 
we  shall  allow  it  to  be  in  many  ways  evil ;  we  shall  take  for 
granted  that  slavery,  polygamy,  cruelty,  etc.,  are  wrong,  and 
that  this  must  have  been  God's  judgment  on  them  then  as 
it  is  now.  How  then  explain  the  apparent  tolerance  and 
sanction  of  such  evils  ? 

The  full  treatment  of  this  subject  would  involve  the 
careful  consideration  of  God's  general  relation  to  the  evil  of  the- 
world.  The  truth  is  here  again  illustrated  that  there  is  no 
difficulty  in  theology  which  does  not  emerge  equally  in 
philosophy;  or,  as  Butler  pointed  out,  that  there  is  no 
difficulty  in  revelation  which  has  not  its  counterpart  in 
God's  ordinary  providence.  From  the  abstract  or  doctrinaire 
point  of  view,  it  may  seem  a  strange  thing  that  God  should 
uphold,  or  have  anything  to  do  with,  a  world  that  has  evil 
in  it  at  all;  should  permit,  and  be  patient  of,  that  evil; 
should  allow  it  to  develop,  and  overrule,  it  for  His  own 
purposes;  should  seem,  by  His  silence  and  seeming  in- 
difference, to  connive  at  the  crimes  and  iniquities  of  which 
so  large  a  part  of  the  history  of  mankind  is  made  up.  The 
sword  of  the  Israelite  is,  after  all,  only  a  more  acute  form  of 
the  problem  that  meets  us  in  the  providential  employment, 
in  even  more  horrible  forms,2  of  the  sword  of  the  Assyrian, 

principle,  all  such  conduct.  "To  play  the  harlot"  is  an  expression  of 
shame  everywhere  in  Scripture.  Cf.  Gen.  xxxiv.  7,  31 ;  xxxviii.  24  ;  Deut. 
xxii.  21,  etc. 

1  Hosea  iv.  may  serve  as  example ;  cf.  specially  vers.  2,  10-14.  The 
sin  is  literal  as  well  as  spiritual. 

1  One  has  only  to  look  at  the  accounts  and  pictures  on  the  Assyrian 
monuments  of  the  barbarities  and  tortures  inflicted  by  conquerors  on  their 
prisoners — the  beheadings,  ini]>alings,  flayings,  blind  ings,  mutilations,  etc. 
— to  see  how  terrible  a  thing  war  ordinarily  was  in  these  times.  Such 
extremes  of  cruelty  are  not  a  feature  of  Jewish  warfare.  The  cases  in 


472  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

the  Chaldean,  or  Eoman,  to  inflict  the  judgment  threatened 
of  God  on  Israel  itself.1  Yet  only  a  little  reflection  is  needed 
to  show  that,  if  the  world  is  to  be  upheld,  governed,  and 
judged,  at  all,  it  is  only  in  some  such  way  that  even  the 
Holiest  can  govern  and  judge  it.  As  Paul  says,  in  repelling 
the  objection  that  God  is  unrighteous  in  taking  vengeance 
for  sins  which  He  has  overruled  for  His  own  glory :  "God 
forbid ;  for  then  how  shall  God  judge  the  world  ? "  2  Let  us 
see  how  this  bears  on  the  progressiveness  of  revelation.3 

1.  One  thing  plain  is,  that,  at  whatever  point  revelation 
begins,  it  must  take  man  up  at  the  stage  at  which  it  finds  him. 
It  must  take  him  up  at  his  existing  stage  of  knowledge  and 
culture,  and  with  his  existing  social  usages  and  ethical  ideas. 
Just  as  it  was  remarked  above  of  the  prophet,  that  it  is 
psychologically  inconceivable  that  he  should  be  lifted  out  of 
all  the  forms  of  his  existing  consciousness,  and  transported 
into  conditions  for  which  no  analogy  was  found  in  the 
contents  of  that  consciousness;  so  it  must  be  said  of 
historical  revelation,  that  it  could  not  at  a  stroke  annihilate 
existing  conditions,  and  create  a  world  of  new  ones.  Re- 
velation must  begin  somewhere,  and  must  work  patiently  in 
accordance  with  the  laws  of  historical  development ;  4  must 
lay  hold  on  what  is  better  to  counterwork  and  gradually 
overcome  what  is  worse;  must  be  content  to  implant 
principles,  and  bear  patiently  with  much  remaining  evil,  till 
the  good  has  time  to  grow,  and  to  give  rise  to  a  new  order 
of  things  that  will  supplant  the  old.  This  is  the  true  side 
of  the  law  of  evolution,  and  it  applies  in  grace,  as  well  as 
in  nature.  We  see  this  law  in  operation  even  under 
Christianity.  There  is  not  a  word  in  Christ's  teaching,  e.g., 
any  more  than  there  is  in  Paul's,  directly  denouncing 
slavery,  or  instigating  to  a  revolt  against  it.  Yet  nothing 

which  torture  was  inflicted  (as  in  David's  treatment  of  the  Moabites,  2  Sam. 
xii.  31)  are  happily  rare. 

1  This  is  the  line  of  argument  chiefly  used  in  a  once  popular  book, 
Henry  Rogers'  Eclipse  of  Faith. 

2  Rom.  iii.  6. 

3  We  proceed  on  the  same  lines  essentially  as  Mozley,  Hessey,  Bruce,  etc. 
See  references  below. 

4  This  does  not  mean  that  in  revelation  the  lowest  type  comes  first.     On 
the  contrary,  in  each  new  dispensation  a  start  is  made,  and  the  foundation  of 
the  new  era  laid,  with  a  typical  personality  (Abraham,  Moiies,  both  still 
relative  to  their  age) ;  in  the  case  of  Christianity  with  an  absolute  type  of 
God-manhood.     Of.  Martensen,  Dogmatics,  pp.  249  ff. ;  Doiaer,  Person  of 
Christ,  v.  pp.  195,  198. 


THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    473 

is  plainer  than  that  slavery  is  opposed  to  the  fundamental 
ideas  and  principles  of  Christ's  religion,  and  that  in  pro- 
portion as  these  prevail  it  is  bound  to  be  abolished.  We 
speak  of  the  imperfections  of  the  Old  Testament ;  but  we 
should  remember  how  far,  as  already  hinted,  society  is  even 
yet  from  being  able  to  conduct  its  business  on  the  ideal 
principles  of  Christ's  religion.1  We  have,  e.g.,  to  tolerate 
and  regulate  houses  for  the  sale  of  intoxicants ;  we  use 
oaths,  which  Christ  says  "  come  of  evil " ; 2  we  sanction,  and 
occasionally  even  glorify,  war,  which  is  as  frightful  a  con- 
tradiction of  Christ's  principles  as  it  is  possible  to  conceive. 
We  do  not  dispute  that  war — defensive  war — is  sometimes 
a  necessity ;  but  this  only  illustrates  what  we  mean,  that 
there  is  a  distinction  between  principles  and  the  possibility 
of  giving  them  complete  effect  at  once.  Christ  condemns 
war  in  no  other  way  than  He  condemns  slavery,  i.e.,  the 
fundamental  principles  of  His  religion  contradict  it ;  but  it 
needs  time  to  educate  the  public  conscience  to  the  point  of 
abhorring  it  as  it  should,  and  finally  of  replacing  it  by  more 
rational  methods  of  settling  international  disputes. 

2.  Given  this  as  a  first  principle,  that  revelation,  where- 
ever  it  begins,  must  take  up  man  as  it  finds  him,  a  second 
will  easily  be  deduced,  viz.,  that  revelation  can  be  held 
responsible  only  for  the  neiv  element  which  it  introduces — 
not  for  the  basis  on  which  it  works,  or  for  everything  in  the 
state  of  mind,  or  limited  outlook,  of  the  recipient,  with 
which  it  happens  to  be  associated.  Revelation  does  one 
thing  at  once — implants  a  truth,  constitutes  a  relation, 
establishes  a  principle,  which  may  have  a  whole  rich  con- 
tent implicit  in  it,  but  it  cannot  convey  to  the  recipient 
from  the  first  a  full,  all-round  apprehension  of  everything 
which  that  principle  involves.  On  the  contrary,  such 
applications  must  necessarily  have  adaptation  to  the  stage 
of  morality  or  of  social  institutions  then  existing,  and  it  is 
only  gradually  that  the  principle  can  be  clearly  disengaged 
from  its  temporary  form.  In  the  reception  of  revelation, 
therefore,  two  elements  have  constantly  to  be  distinguished 
— the  one,  the  form  of  consciousness,  or  state  of  view  and 
moral  feeling,  into  which  the  revelation  is  introduced ;  this 

1  The  unfortunate  thing  about  society  is  that  it  does  not  always  try  to 
realise  Christ's  ideals. 

*  Or  "  of  the  evil  one,"  Matt.  T.  87. 


474  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

may  be  relatively  low  and  undeveloped ;  the  other,  the  new 
element  of  revelation  itself,  which  is  the  positive  and 
germinal  factor,  and  represents  the  real  stage  in  the 
advance.  There  need  be  no  dubiety,  or  lack  of  clearness  or 
positivencss,  in  this  new  element ;  it  is  a  pure,  original  point 
(if  knowledge  or  insight,  but  its  authority  extends  only  to 
itself,  and  cannot  be  employed  to  sanction  every  other 
element  associated  with  it  in  the  same  consciousness.  For 
example,  the  days  of  the  Judges  are  acknowledged  to  have 
been  in  many  ways  rude  and  barbarous ;  we  have  seen  that 
the  Bible  itself  declares  this.  It  is  no  argument,  therefore, 
against  the  reality  of  revelation  in  that  age  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  came  on  men — as  on  Jephthah — whose  modes  of 
speech  and  action  (as  in  his  ideas  of  God,  or  his  vow  about 
his  daughter)1  show  many  traces  of  the  rudeness  of  the 
times.  So  again,  Deborah  was  a  real  prophetess,  i.e.,  she 
possessed  from  God's  Spirit  the  qualification  necessary  for 
judging  and  rallying  by  her  word  the  tribes  of  Israel.2  But 
her  song  of  victory,  with  its  panegyric  of  Jael,  shows  that, 
with  all  her  inspired  exaltation,  she  yet  stood  on  the  ground 
of  her  age  in  her  judgment  of  deeds  which  a  purer  stage  of 
enlightenment  would  condemn.8  The  same  principle  applies 
to  certain  of  the  imprecations,  and  the  frequent  prayers  for 
the  destruction  of  enemies,  in  the  psalms — on  which  more 
is  said  below.  It  is  the  course  of  revelation  which  alone 
can  correct  these  defects  of  its  earlier  stages,  and,  by  re- 
velation growing  out  of  revelation,  enable  the  world  and  the 
Church  to  transcend  the  lower  stages  altogether. 

3.  A  third  principle  follows.  As,  in  virtue  of  the  fore- 
going, revelation  can  be  held  responsible  only  for  the  new 
element  it  introduces,  and  not  for  the  basis  on  which  it  works, 
or  for  everything  in  the  state  of  mind  of  its  recipients, 
so,  conversely,  it  is  the  function  of  revelation  to  lay  hold  on 
whatever  better  elements  there  may  ~be  in  that  state  of  mind,  in 
order,  by  their  means,  to  overcome  the  imperfections,  and 
create  something  higher.  This  is  the  educational  function 
in  revelation,  which  can  only  reach  its  end  by  working  with 
such  means  as  the  imperfect  state  affords  towards  the  pro- 
duction of  a  more  perfect.  An  illustration  of  the  principle 

1  See  above,  pp.  131,  140.  2  Judg.  iv.  4-6. 

*  Perhaps  a  complete  view  of  the  circumstances  would  mitigate  even  our 
judgment  of  Jael's  action  (cf.  Mozley,  Ruling  Ideas,  pp.  142  ff.). 


THE  PR0GRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    475 

in  question  is  found  in  the  command  to  Abraham  to  sacrifice 
Isaac.  In  so  far  as  this  command  supposes  as  its  background 
the  heathen  custom  of  the  sacrifice  of  children,  it  falls  under 
the  two  former  principles  that  revelation  takes  up  a  man  at 
the  stage  at  which  it  finds  him,  and  is  not  responsible  for 
the  basis  on  which  it  works ;  but  in  so  far  as  it  uses  this  basis 
to  elicit  a  singular  proof  of  Abraham's  faith,  and  actually 
to  put  the  stamp  of  divine  condemnation  on  human  sacrifice 
in  Israel,  it  falls  under  the  third,  or  educative,  principle. 
For  even  in  this  most  hateful  form  of  heathen  sacrifice,  as 
has  often  been  pointed  out,  there  was  a  nobler  element 
present  This  nobler  element  was  the  idea  of  the  surrender 
of  the  dearest  and  best  to  God,  and  it  was  God's  will  to 
elicit  and  conserve  this  spiritual  fruit,  while  rejecting  as 
abhorrent  the  form  in  which  it  was  embodied.1  So  the 
usage  of  blood-revenge  is  one  of  the  rudest  methods  of  justice 
in  a  tribal  state  of  society  ;  yet,  by  limiting  and  regulating 
this  usage  by  the  law  of  the  cities  of  refuge,  its  worst  effects 
were  checked,  and  the  way  was  prepared  for  its  ultimately 
dying  out  altogether.  The  legislation  on  marriage  and 
divorce  put  salutary  restrictions  on  polygamy,  and  the  wanton 
putting  away  of  a  wife,  and,  after  the  exile  especially,  mono- 
gamy, though  not  universal,  seems  to  have  become  the  rule.2 
The  same  principle  applies  in  some  degree  even  to  what 
jars  upon  us  most — the  apparent  sanction  given  to  the  spirit 
of  revenge,  or,  as  it  may  be  better  put,  the  restricted  range 
of  the  spirit  of  mercy.  There  is  here,  as  elsewhere  on  this 
subject,  great  need  for  careful  and  balanced  statement.  It 
is  perfectly  certain  that  the  Mosaic  religion,  taken  as  a 
whole,  inculcated  mercy  with  a  decision  and  earnestness 
that  no  other  religion  before  Christianity  ever  showed  ; 8  it 
is  equally  certain  that  hatred  and  revengefulness,  as  private 

1  On  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  see  Stanley,  Jewish  Church,  i.  pp.  40  ff. ; 
Mozlcy,  Jtuling  Ideas,  Lect.  II. ;  Bruce,  Chief  End  of  Revelation,  pp.  98  ff. ; 
Uttley,  Aspect*  ofO.T.,  pp.  177-78;  Driver,  Genesis,  pp.  221-22,  etc. 

JCf.  Smith's  Diet,  of  Bible,  art.  "Marriage,"  vol.  ii.  p.  246.  The 
contrast  is  apparent  in  Mohammedanism,  in  which  polygamy  continues  to 
flourish. 

'  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  spirit  of  tenderness  and  mercy  pervades 
the  lavs  of  Israel  (not  to  spi-ak  of  the  writings  of  the  prophets)  in  a  way  to 
•which  no  other  ancient  code  affords  any  parallel.  The  poor,  the  widow, 
the  fatherless,  the  stranger,  the  homeless,  the  distressed,  are  Jehovah's 
special  care,  and  His  law  is  full  of  provisions  for  them.  Cf.,  e.g.,  Ex.  xxii. 
21-27  ;  xxiii.  9-12 ;  Dent.  xv.  7  ff. ;  xxiv.  14-22,  etc. 


476  PSALMS  AND  PROPHETS: 

passions,  are  constantly  condemned.1  But  where  enmity  to 
God,  or  antagonism  to  His  cause,  was  concerned,  the  stage  at 
which  we  find  ourselves  in  the  Old  Testament  is  one  of  un- 
compromising hostility.2  It  is  the  principle  of  justice,  in  all 
its  stern  severity,  not  yet  that  of  mercy,  that  rules ; 3  and  little 
distinction  is  made  between  the  transgressor  and  his  sin. 
The  judgment  falls  unsparingly  on  the  wrong-doer,  and,  in 
the  tribal  stage  of  society,  on  all  that  are  his.4  This 
principle  is  applied,  in  the  case  of  presumptuous  or  public 
transgression,  as  relentlessly  within  Israel,  and  upon  Israel,5 
as  it  is  ivithout  Israel.  The  destruction  of  the  Canaanites  is 
the  most  extensive,  as  it  is  the  most  awful,  application  of  it, 
but  it  is  no  more  than  an  application.6  And  even  this  stage, 
with  its  inevitable  defects,  was  one  that  had  to  be  gone 
through — as  no  one  has  shown  more  strikingly  than  Professor 
Seeley,  in  his  Ecce  Homo,7 — if  the  higher  result  was  to  be 
attained. 

In  general,  then,  we  perceive  that  revelation,  without 
parting  with  anything  of  its  reality  or  authority,  is,  in  the 
truest  sense,  an  organic  process — a  growing  from  less  to 
more,  with  adaptation  at  every  point  to  the  stage  of  develop- 
ment of  its  recipients — a  light  shining  often  in  a  dark  place, 
but  still  shining  more  and  more  unto  the  perfect  day.  Its 
higher  stages  criticise,  if  we  may  so  speak,  its  lower ;  shed 
off  temporary  elements;  disengage  principles  from  the 
imperfect  forms  in  which  they  are  embodied,  and  give  them 
more  perfect  expression ;  yet  unfailingly  conserve,  and  take 
up  into  the  new  form,  every  element  of  permanent  value  in 

1  See  the  remarkable  precepts  bearing  on  the  treatment  of  an  enemy,  Ex. 
xxiii.  4,  5  (cf.  Deut.  xxiL  1,  4).  Of.  also  Ps.  vii.  4,  with  David's  treatment 
of  Saul  (above,  p.  443). 

a  Ps.  cxxxix.  21,  22  well  expresses  the  spirit :  "Do  not  I  hate  them, 
0  Jehovah,  that  hate  Tliee  ?  .  .  .  I  hate  them  with  perfect  hatred  ;  I  count 
them  mine  enemies."  It  is  in  this  sense  we  are  to  understand  most  or  all 
of  the  imprecatory  psalms. 

3  Cf.,  e.g.,  Deut.  xiii. ;  xvii.  2-7. 

4  E.g.,  Achan  (Josh.  vii.  10  ff.) ;  Korah  (Num.  xvi.  24  ff.).     Cf.  Mozloy, 
pp.  115  ff. 

*  It  is  not  to  be  forgotten,  on  the  other  side,  that  this  sternness  applied 
only  to  presumptuous  transgressions  (ef.  Num.  xv.  30-31),  special  theocratic 
sins,  and  offences  against  the  criminal  law,  and  that  tin*  religion  is  through- 
out pervaded  with  divine  mercy  and  forgiveness  (Ex.  xxxiv.  6,  7). 

°Cf.  the  authors  named  above  :  Stanley,  i.  pp.  217-22  :  Mozley,  Lect. 
IV.;  Bruce,  pp.  137-44  ;  and  see  Note  D  on  Destruction  of  the  Canaanites. 

7  Cf.  his  chapters  xix.  ("The  Law  of  Mercy")  and  xxi.  ("The  Law  of 
Resentment " ). 


THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION    477 

the  old.  Prophecy  does  not  let  fall  one  element  that  was  of 
permanent  value  in  the  law ;  Christianity  conserves  every  jot 
and  tittle  of  the  spiritual  content  of  both  law  and  prophets.1 

THE  CLOSE 

Progressive  revelation  culminates  in  Christ.  Here,  as 
we  began,  so  we  end.  In  Christ  the  long  development  of 
Old  Testament  religion — Abrahamic  promise,  Mosaic  co- 
venant, Levitical  sacrifice,  Davidic  kingship,  prophetic  hopes, 
Messianic  ideals,  strain  of  psalmist,  redemptive  purpose — 
finds  its  fulfilment  and  point  of  repose.  His  Person  clasps 
Old  and  New  Testaments  into  one.  To  understand  the  Old 
Testament  aright  we  must  look  to  this  goal  to  which  all  its 
roads  lead.  Respice  finem.  On  the  other  hand,  if  faith  has 
firm  grasp  of  Christ  as  risen  and  exalted,  this  will  put  all 
the  Old  Testament  in  a  new  light  for  us.  It  is  this  connec- 
tion of  Old  Testament  with  New,  of  law  with  Gospel,  of 
prophecy  with  Christ,  which  gives  the  critical  problems  we 
have  been  studying  their  keenest  interest.  The  tendency 
of  late  has  been  to  make  too  light  of  this  connection. 
The  storm  of  criticism  which,  in  the  last  decades,  assailed 
the  Old  Testament,  was  fondly  thought  by  many  to  leave 
intact  the  New  Testament.  What  mattered  it  about 
Abraham  and  Moses,  so  long  as  Jesus  and  His  Gospel 
remained?  That  delusion  is  passing  away.  The  fact  is 
becoming  apparent  to  the  dullest  which  has  long  been 
evident  to  unbiassed  observers,  that  much  of  the  radical 
criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  proceeded  on  principles,  and 
was  conducted  by  methods,  which  had  only  to  be  applied 
with  like  thoroughness  to  the  New  Testament  to  work  like 
havoc.  The  fundamental  ideas  of  God  and  His  revelation 
which  underlay  that  criticism  could  not,  as  we  set  out  by 
affirming,  lead  up  to  a  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  but  only  to 
a  negation  of  it.  The  conceptions  of  Christ  and  Christianity 
which  have  been  its  tacit  presuppositions  from  the  days  of 
Eichhorn,  De  Wette,  and  Vatke,  to  those  of  Kuenen  and 
Wellhausen,  are  toto  ccelo  different  from  those  of  the  believing 
Church,  and  could  not  in  time  but  work  themselves  out 
to  their  logical  conclusions.  This,  accordingly,  is  what  we 
see  actually  happening.  The  principles  of  a  rationalistic 
1  Matt  v.  17, 18. 


478    THE  PROGRESSIVENESS  OF  REVELATION 

criticism,  having  once  gained  recognition  and  approval  in  the 
region  of  the  Old  Testament,  are  now  being  transferred  and 
applied  with  increasing  boldness  and  vigour  to  the  New, 
with  the  result  that  it  is  rapidly  coming  to  be  assumed  that 
only  a  Christ  from  whom  all  supernatural  traits  are  stripped 
off  can  be  accepted  as  historical  by  the  "  modern  "  mind.  Not 
only  do  critics  like  Wellhausen  and  Gunkel,  who,  advancing 
from  the  Old  Testament,  have  entered  the  New  Testament 
field,1  take  this  ground,  but  a  multitude  of  works  on  New 
Testament  subjects,  recently  issued  and  enjoying  a  consider- 
able popularity  in  their  own  tongues  and  in  translations,8 
have  the  same  as  their  underlying  postulate.  A  grave  peril, 
growing  out  of  a  long  train  of  conditions  in  the  spirit  of  the 
age,  has  thus  arisen,  which  cannot  be  too  early  or  too  reso- 
lutely faced.  This  at  least  is  the  conviction  under  which 
the  present  book  has  been  written.  If  it  leads  any  who 
have  perhaps  yielded  too  ready  or  indiscriminating  an  assent 
to  the  positions  of  the  modern  critical  movement  to  examine 
more  carefully  the  foundations  of  the  theory  of  the  Old 
Testament  to  which  they  have  given  their  adherence,  its 
end  will  be  fulfilled. 

1  Wellhausen  translates  and  critically  comments  on  Matthew  and  Mark. 
He  simply  leaves  out  the  first  and  second  chapters  of  Matthew,  and  begins 
•with  the  third  chapter,  without  a  word  of  explanation.  Gunkel  entitles  his 
production,  Zum  Religionsgeschichtlichen  Perstandniss  des  Neuen  Testaments. 
He  seeks  to  show  that  the  evangelical  narratives  of  the  virgin-birth  and 
infancy  of  Jesus,  of  His  temptation,  transfiguration,  resurrection,  etc.,  borrow 
from  foreign  religions  (through  Judaism). 

1  We  have  in  view  writers  like  Re" ville,  Wernle,  Wrede,  Oscar  Holtzmann, 
Percy  Gardner,  and  many  more.  See  in  Chapter  I.  p.  7. 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTERS 


NOTE  TO  CHAPTER  I 

NOTE  A.— P.  3 

THE   JEWISH    CANON 

DR.  DRIVER  begins  his  notice  of  the  Canon  (Tntrod.  p.  ii)  with 
the  son  of  Sirach ;  we  would  prefer  to  begin  lower  down,  withv 
the  New  Testament  and  Josephus.  The  New  Testament  speaks 
of  a  well-known  collection  of  "Scriptures,"  believed  to  be 
divinely  inspired,  and  follows  the  usual  division  into  "the 
law  of  Moses,  and  the  prophets,  and  (from  its  chief  part)  the 
psalms"  (Luke  xxiv.  44).  The  passage  in  Josephus,  which  in 
his  first  edition  Dr.  Driver  does  not  mention,  is  as  follows : 
"  For  we  have  not  myriads  of  discordant  and  conflicting  books, 
but  twenty-two  only,  comprising  the  record  of  all  time,  and  justly 
accredited  as  divine.  Of  these,  five  are  books  of  Moses,  which 
embrace  the  laws  and  the  traditions  of  the  origin  of  mankind, 
until  his  own  death,  a  period  of  almost  3000  years.  From  the 
death  of  Moses  till  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  (465-425  B.C.),  the 
prophets  who  followed  Moses  narrated  the  events  of  their  time  in* 
thirteen  books.  The  remaining  four  books  consist  of  hymns  to  God, 
and  maxims  of  conduct  for  men.  From  Artaxerxes  to  our  own 
age,  the  history  has  been  written  in  detail,  but  it  is  not  esteemed 
worthy  of  the  same  credit,  on  account  of  the  exact  succession  of 
the  prophets  having  been  no  longer  maintained"  (Contra  Apion, 
i.  8 ;  Driver,  p.  ix ;  see  Note  H,  p.  527  below). 

This  is  an  important  testimony  to  the  belief  of  the  Jews  in 
the  first  century  A.D.  as  to  the  number  of  the  sacred  books,  their 
divine  inspiration,  and  the  time,  approximately,  when  the  Canon 
was  completed.  The  four  books  which  in  Josephus's  arrange- 
ment constitute  the  third  division  are  the  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes,  and  Canticles.  Daniel,  in  this  distribution,  falls 
among  the  thirteen  prophets.  The  division  into  twenty-two  books 
(with  slight  variation  of  enumeration)  is  one  followed  in  the  Church 

3' 


482  NOTE  TO  CHAPTER  I 

by  Origen  and  Melito  of  Sardis  (both  of  whom  received  it 
from  Jews),  and  by  Jerome,  who,  however,  knew  of  and  mentions 
the  Rabbinical  division  into  twenty-four  books.  The  Jewish 
Palestinian  division  is  into  the  three  parts — five  books  of  the 
Law ;  eight  of  the  Prophets,  subdivided  into  "  former  prophets  " 
(Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings),  and  "  latter  prophets  "  (Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  Twelve  Minor  Prophets  as  one  book) ; 
and  eleven  Hagiographa  (Chronicles,  Psalms,  etc.) — twenty-four  in 
all.  Daniel  in  this  case  (as  Jerome  also  testifies)  was  included 
among  the  Hagiographa.  The  twenty-two  of  Josephus  is 
harmonised  with  the  twenty-four  of  the  other  reckoning  by  taking 
Ruth  with  Samuel,  and  Lamentations  with  Jeremiah.  Melito 
reckons  Ruth,  but  omits  Esther. 

It  is  clear  that  Josephus  regards  the  Canon  as  closing  about 
the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  after  which,  he  says,  there  was  not  an 
exact  succession  of  prophets  (the  same  idea  of  the  cessation  of 
prophecy  is  expressed  in  1  Mace.  iv.  46,  ix.  27,  xiv.  41,  and 
elsewhere),  and  he  represents  this  as  the  traditional  belief  of  his 
time.  The  same  tradition  in  a  more  confused  form  is  met  with 
in  the  spurious  letter  prefixed  to  2  Mace. :  "  The  same  things 
were  also  reported  in  the  public  archives  and  in  the  records 
relating  to  Nehemiah;  and  how,  founding  a  library,  he  gathered 
together  the  things  concerning  the  kings  and  prophets,  and  the 
(writings)  of  David,  and  letters  of  kings  about  sacred  gifts." 
When  we  proceed  to  test  this  tradition,  we  do  not  find  it  wholly 
unworthy  of  credence. 

The  law  was  plainly  of  canonical  authority  in  the  days  of 
Ezra  (see  pp.  295  ff.) ;  how  far  it  is  older  is  discussed  in  Chap.  IX. 
There  is  nothing  against  the  collection  of  prophets  in  the  time 
of  Nehemiah ;  though  earlier  collections  may  well  have  existed, 
analogous  to  the  collections  of  Paul's  Epistles  in  the  early 
Church.  The  third  part  of  the  Canon  was  more  elastic  ;  whether 
it  remained  open  to  receive  contributions  of  a  later  date  than, 
say,  the  fourth  century,  depends  on  the  view  we  take  of  Macca- 
bsean  psalms  and  of  the  age  of  Daniel  (see  Chap.  XII.).  But  the 
repeated  assertion  that  the  spirit  of  prophecy  had  departed  is 
a  strong  proof  that  books  believed  to  be  new  were  not  admitted. 
The  treatment  of  the-  work  of  the  son  of  Sirach  (see  p.  449)  is 
evidence  of  this.  This  author  is  acquainted  with  a  threefold 
division  of  the  sacred"  books,  but  puts  his  own  work  on  a  quite 
different  level  from  them ;  and  his  book,  though  highly  esteemed, 
was  not  received  into  the  Canon.  The  impression  given  is,  that 
the  collection  of  law,  prophets,  and  other  sacred  books  was  already 
old — a  fact  borne  out  by  the  LXX  translation  (see  p.  449). 
It  is  not  an  argument  against  this  that  Esther  and  Ecclesiastes 


NOTE  TO  CHAPTER  I  483 

were  subjects  of  discussion  in  the  schools,  any  more  than  the 
existence  of  "  disputed  books "  in  the  time  of  Eusebius  (fourth 
century  A.D.)  disproves  that  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament 
was  already  practically  fixed  in  the  second  century. 

On  the  facts,  see,  along  with  Driver,  the  works  of  Buhl  and 
Ryle  on  the  O.T.  Canon,  and  the  article  "  O.T.  Canon  "  in  Diet, 
of  £iblet  by  Woods  (voL  iii.). 


NOTE  A.— P.  31 

THE  BIBLE   AND   OTHER   SACRED   BOOKS 

A  FEW  words  of  personal  testimony  may  be  quoted  from  Professor 
Monier  Williams  on  the  comparison  of  the  Scriptures  with  the 
Sacred  Books  of  the  East : — 

"When  I  began  investigating  Hinduism  and  Buddhism,  I 
found  many  beautiful  gems  ;  nay,  I  met  with  bright  coruscations 
of  true  light  flashing  here  and  there  amid  the  surrounding 
darkness.  As  I  prosecuted  my  researches  into  these  non- 
Christian  systems,  I  began  to  foster  a  fancy  that  they  had 
been  unjustly  treated.  I  began  to  observe  and  trace  out  curious 
coincidences  and  comparisons  with  our  own  sacred  book  of  the 
East.  I  began,  in  short,  to  be  a  believer  in  what  is  called  the 
evolution  and  growth  of  religious  thought.  'These  imperfect 
systems,'  I  said  to  myself,  '  are  interesting  efforts  of  the  human 
mind  struggling  upwards  towards  Christianity.  Nay,  it  is 
probable,  that  they  were  all  intended  to  lead  up  to  the  one  true 
religion,  and  that  Christianity  is,  after  all,  merely  the  climax, 
the  complement,  the  fulfilment  of  them  all.' 

"  Now  there  is  a  delightful  fascination  about  such  a  theory, 
and,  what  is  more,  there  are  really  elements  of  truth  in  it. 
But  I  am  glad  of  this  opportunity  of  stating  publicly  that  I  am 
persuaded  I  was  misled  by  its  attractiveness,  and  that  its 
main  idea  is  quite  erroneous.  .  .  .  We  welcome  these  books. 
We  ask  every  missionary  to  study  their  contents,  and  thank- 
fully lay  hold  of  whatsoever  things  are  true  and  of  good 
report  in  them.  But  we  warn  him  that  there  can  be  no  greater 
mistake  than  to  force  these  non-Christian  Bibles  into  conformity 
with  some  scientific  theory  of  development,  and  then  point  to 
the  Christian's  holy  Bible  as  the  crowning  product  of  religious 
evolution.  So  far  from  this,  these  non-Christian  Bibles  are  all 

484 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  II  485 

developments  in  the  wrong  direction.  They  all  begin  with  some 
Hashes  of  true  light,  and  end  in  utter  darkness.  Pile  them,  if 
you  will,  on  the  left  side  of  your  study  table,  but  place  your 
own  holy  Bible  on  the  right  side — all  by  itself,  all  alone — and 
with  a  wide  gap  between." — Quoted  by  Joseph  Cook  in  God 
in  the  Bible  (Boston  Lectures),  p.  16. 

Cf.  Carlyle's  judgment  on  the  Koran  in  his  Heroe*,  Lect.  II. 
"The  Hero  as  Prophet";  Max  M tiller  on  the  Hindu  Brahmanas, 
in  Sanscrit  Literal,  pp.  389  ff. 


NOTE  B.— P.  45 

MYTHOLOGY    AND    HISTORY    IN    THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

RKVEI.A HUN  is  historical,  and  it  is  a  serious  disservice  to  religion 
to  depreciate  the  historical  element  in  revelation,  or  to  represent 
it  as  immaterial  to  faith  whether  the  history  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  true  or  legendary.  Budde  himself  says:  "God  reveals 
Himself  not  through  words,  but  through  deeds,  not  in  speech,  but 
in  action  "  (Das  Alte  Test,  und  die  Ausgral/untjen,  2nd  ed.,  Pref. 
p.  9).  But  if  the  ground  is  taken  from  the  only  facts  we  have, 
what  remains  to  yield  the  revelation  ?  Is  it  not  left  in  the  air  1 
The  peculiar  combination  witnessed  in  the  Anglican  Church 
of  acceptance  of  the  results  of  the  Wellhausen  criticism  with 
zeal  for  every  jot  and  tittle  of  a  high  patristic  orthodoxy — of  a 
method  which  turns  the  bulk  of  the  Old  Testament  history  into 
legend  and  invention,  with  stout  defence  of  the  historicity  of 
the  Gospel  narratives  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  the  Transfiguration, 
and  the  Resurrection — is  one,  we  are  convinced,  foredoomed  to 
failure.  One  side  or  the  other  must  give  way.  God,  Ottley 
says  truly,  "interposes"  in  miracle  (Aspects  of  O.T.,  p.  115;  cf. 
pp.  61  ff.,  107  ff.).  But  if  the  actual  miracles  are  taken  away  by 
the  narratives  being  regarded  as  late  and  legendary,  what  better 
are  we  ?  Ottley  refers,  p.  108,  to  the  "  admirable  remarks  "  on  O.T. 
miracle  of  Schultz,  who  had  no  place  in  his  scheme  for  miracle 
in  the  proper  sense  at  all. 

It  is  again  a  mistake  to  represent  it  as  a  matter  of  indifference 
for  the  right  understanding  of  revelation  what  theory  we  adopt 
of  its  origins  and  course  of  development.  What  does  it  matter 
how  the  thing  came  to  be,  it  is  said,  if  we  have  the  result? 
But  in  everything  else  it  is  recognised  that  a  thing  is  only  known 
when  its  real  history  is  known.  No  scientist  would  ever  allow 
that  one  account  of  origins  is  as  good  as  another.  It  is  a  first 


486  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  II 

principle  of  science  that  we  can  only  understand  a  phenomenon 
rightly  when  we  accurately  understand  its  antecedents  and 
genesis.  It  is  this  which  gives  its  importance  to  the  idea  of 
evolution.  Why,  among  Biblical  critics  themselves,  the  stress 
laid  on  getting  behind  the  so-called  "  legends  "  to  the  real  course 
of  the  development,  if  not  because  it  is  felt  that  it  is  only  when 
legend  is  displaced  by  fact  that  we  have  the  true  key  to  the 
nature  of  the  religion  ?  But  if  the  critic's  understanding  of  the 
history  turns  out  to  be  a  wz'sunderstanding,  that  equally  will  be 
a  fatal  obstacle  to  a  right  comprehension  of  the  result. 

Even  legend,  however,  is  not  mythology,  and,  despite  recent 
attempts  to  revive  a  mythological  interpretation  of  personages 
and  incidents  in  the  Old  Testament  (see  below,  p.  488),  there  is 
'  very  general  agreement  that  the  Old  Testament  religion  is  non- 
mythological.  This  absence  of  mythology  is  another  marked 
feature  of  contrast  with  other  religions.  We  may,  if  we  please, 
speak  of  a  tradition  like  that  of  Eden  as  "  mythical,"  as  others 
may  discuss  whether  it  contains  symbol  or  allegory.  But "  myth  " 
in  this  case  must  be  distinguished  from  mythology  proper,  i.e., 
such  weaving  of  stories  about  the  gods  in  their  relations  to 
each  other  and  to  the  world  as  are  found  in  other  religions,  and 
have  generally  their  origin  in  nature-phenomena  (e.g.,  sun-myths, 
dawn-myths,  myths  of  growth  and  reproduction,  etc.).  From  this 
element,  as  most  scholars  recognise,  the  Biblical  religion  seems 
entirely  free.  See  the  remarks  of  Professor  Robertson,  Early 
Religion  of  Israel,  pp.  188-9,  299.  Professor  Robertson  quotes 
from  an  interesting  article  by  Mr.  Andrew  Lang  in  The  New 
Review,  Aug.  1889;  and  also  quotes  Stade,  Geschichte,  i.  pp. 
438-9.  Gunkel  may  also  be  referred  to,  Genesis,  pp.  113  ff.  He 
thinks  traces  of  an  original  mythological  basis  are  to  be  discovered, 
but  contends  for  the  absence  of  mythology  in  the  proper  religion 
of  Israel  (On  his  theory,  see  below,  p.  494.) 


NOTE  C.— P.  50 

INSPIRATION   AND   THE   MATERIALS   OP   THE    RECORD 

INSPIRATION  does  not  create  the  materials  of  its  record,  but  works 
with  those  it  has  received.  It  reveals  itself  in  the  insight  it 
shows  into  them,  and  in  the  use  it  makes  of  them.  An  interest- 
ing illustration  of  this  truth  is  furnished  in  a  note  of  the  old 
commentator,  Matthew  Henry,  on  1  Chron.  viii.  1-32.  "  As  to 
the  difficulties,"  he  says,  "that  occur  in  this  and  the  foregoing 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  II  487 

genealogies  we  need  not  perplex  ourselves.  I  presume  Ezra  took 
them  as  he  found  them  in  the  books  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and 
Judah  (chap.  ix.  1),  according  as  they  were  given  in  by  the 
several  tribes,  each  observing  what  method  they  thought  fit. 
Hence  some  ascend,  others  descend  ;  some  have  numbers  affixed, 
others  places;  some  have  historical  remarks  intermixed,  others 
have  not ;  some  are  shorter,  others  longer  ;  some  agree  with 
other  records,  others  differ ;  some,  it  is  likely,  were  torn,  erased, 
uud  blotted,  others  more  legible.  Those  of  Dan  and  Reuben 
were  entirely  lost.  This  holy  man  wrote  as  he  was  moved  of 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  there  was  no  necessity  for  the  making  up 
of  the  defects,  no,  nor  for  the  rectifying  of  the  mistakes  of  these 
genealogies  by  inspiration.  It  was  sufficient  that  he  copied  them 
out  as  they  came  to  hand,  or  so  much  of  them  as  was  requisite 
to  the  present  purpose,  which  was  the  directing  of  the  returned 
captives  to  settle  as  nearly  as  they  could  with  those  of  their  own 
family,  and  in  the  places  of  their  former  residence." 


NOTE  TO  CHAPTER  III 


NOTE  A.— P.  59 

CRITICAL   EXTRAVAGANCES 

IN  the  Nineteenth  Century  for  December  1902,  Canon  Cheyne 
commends  to  English  readers  the  speculations  of  the  latest  school 
of  Biblical  critics,  according  to  which  the  Jewish  literature  is 
largely  a  borrowed  mythology.  According  to  Dr.  H.  Winckler, 
who  represents  this  school,  not  only  are  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob  legendary  heroes,  whose  histories  are  derived  from  astronom- 
ical myths,  but  something  similar  must  be  said  of  Saul,  David, 
and  Solomon.  David,  he  holds,  is  a  solar  hero ;  his  red  hair  is 
the  image  of  the  rays  of  the  sun ;  and,  if  Saul  and  Jonathan 
correspond  to  the  constellation  Gemini,  David  is  the  legendary 
reflection  of  Leo,  while  Goliath  corresponds  to  Orion.  The 
Canon  chides  the  English  "  sobriety  "  and  "  moderation  "  which 
rejects  these  fantasies ! 

Winckler's  views  are  expounded  in  his  new  edition  of 
Schrader's  work,  The  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and  the  Old 
Testament  (1902) ;  and  are  trenchantly  dealt  with  by  Budde  in 
his  printed  address,  Das  Alte  Testament  und  die  Ausgrdbungun 
(1903).  The  real  originator  of  the  theory  is  E.  Stucken,  in 
his  work  Astralmythen  der  Hebraer,  Bdbylonier  und  A'gypter 
(vols.  i.  Abraham,  1896;  ii.  Lot,  1897;  iii.  Jacob,  1901; 
iv.  Esau,  1901).  Abraham  is  the  Moon-god,  Lot  the  Sun, 
Sarah  is  Ishtar,  etc. 

This  "limitless  Panbabylonianism,"  as  Budde  calls  it,  has 
many  modern  developments.  An  instance  is  afforded  in 
Wildeboer's  recent  Commentary  on  Esther.  The  Book  of  Esther, 
it  appears,  goes  back  for  its  basis  to  Babylonia  and  Elam. 
Wildeboer  gives  the  credit  of  the  "  solution  "  of  the  problem  to 
Jensen,  who  thus  explains :  "  Esther  reminds  us  of  Ishtar ; 
Mordecai  of  Marduk.  Esther  is  the  cousin  of  Mordecai,  as  Ishtar 

488 


NOTE  TO  CHAPTER  III  489 

probably  of  Marduk.  For  the  latter  is  a  son  of  la,  while  Ishtar 
is  a  daughter  of  Ann.  But  Anu,  Bil,  and  la  are  presumably 
viewed  as  brothers. .  .  .  Haman  reminds  us  of  Humman  (Homman), 
the  national  god  of  the  Elamites ;  Vasti  of  Masti  or  Vasti  of 
the  Elamite  inscriptions — the  name  of  a  divinity  with  the 
attribute  Zana.  .  .  .  The  history  that  underlies  the  story  of 
Esther  must  have  dealt  with  a  defeat  of  the  Elamites  or  of  an 
Elamite  king.  So  much  appears  certain"!  (Cf.  Expository 
Time*,  August  1898.) 

In  other  directions,  as  in  Canon  Cheyne's  own  speculations 
on  "Jerahmeel"  in  Encyclop.  Biblica  and  Critica  Biblica,  the 
same  tendency  to  extravagance  displays  itself.  Commenting  on 
the  theory,  Professor  J.  Robertson  says :  "  The  '  last  word  '  of  this 
criticism  is  Jerahmeel,  which,  being  interpreted,  means '  God  pity ' 
us  !"  (Address,  16th  April  1902).  A  last  example  maybe  taken 
from  Siegfried's  work  on  Ecclesiastes  (Qoheleth),  giving  us  the 
latest  theory  of  that  portion  of  Scripture.  The  sagacity  of  the 
critic  has  split  the  book  up  into  its  diverse  elements.  First,  there 
is  the  primitive  author  of  the  book,  Ql,  a  Jew  whose  faith  has 
suffered  shipwreck.  He  is  improved  on  by  Qs,  an  Epicurean 
Sadducee,  who  glorifies  eating  and  drinking.  Another  glossator, 
Q8,  resented  the  depreciation  of  wisdom,  and  added  a  number  of 
passages  which  are  enumerated.  Still  sharper  opposition  to  the 
denial  of  divine  providence  called  forth  Q4,  one  of  the  early 
Pharisees.  This  is  not  all,  for  there  is  yet  a  number  of  others, 
who  are  conveniently  slumped  under  Q5.  As  to  dates,  Q1  may 
have  written  shortly  before  200  B.C.  ;  Q2,  Q8,  Q4,  Q6  at  various 
times  down  to  100  B.C.  The  fact  that  one  finds  all  this  retailed 
with  due  gravity  by  author  and  learned  reviewers  suggests  the 
question  whether  the  sense  of  humour  is  not  becoming  extinct — 
at  least  in  the  department  of  criticism. 


NOTES  TO   CHAPTER  IV 


NOTE  A— P.  91 

K5NIQ   ON   THE   PERSONIFICATION   THEORY 

A  FEW  sentences  from  Konig's  discussion  in  his  Neueste  Prinzipien 
may  not  be  out  of  place.  "  Parallels,"  he  says,  "  have  again  been 
sought  in  features  of  the  Greek  and  of  the  Israelitish  tradition 
(Seinecke,  Cornill).  Specially  it  has  been  recalled  that  Greek 
tradition  attributed  to  Lycurgus  two  sons,  Eunomus  and 
Eucosmus,  i.e.,  Law  and  Order.  .  .  .  But  is  this  a  sufficient 
basis  for  the  conclusion  that  Ishmael  and  Isaac  have  in  like 
manner  been  ascribed  to  Abraham  1  What  a  difference  there  is 
between  the  two  pairs  of  names  !  The  Greek  pair,  Eunomus  and 
Eucosmus  clearly  represent  personifications  of  ideas  and  of  the 
results  achieved  by  the  great  lawgiver.  .  .  .  The  two  names 
Ishmael  and  Isaac  cannot  be  referred  to  any  such  design.  .  .  . 
How,  if  in  the  two  names  Ishmael  and  Isaac  such  personifications 
lie  before  us,  could  all  the  particular  traits  be  derived  which  are 
related  with  respect  to  Ishmael  and  Isaac?  Were  there  also 
families  in  Sparta  that  claimed  descent  from  Eunomus  and 
Eucosmus  ? 

"  It  is  further  argued  that  the  Hellenes  traced  their  origin  to  a 
tribal  ancestor  Hellen,  who  had  two  sons,  ^Eolus  and  Dorus,  and 
two  grandsons,  Achaeus  and  Ion.  I  willingly  concede  that  'it 
will  occur  to  no  one  to  see  in  the  bearers  of  these  names  individual 
persons.'  .  .  .  [But]  to  draw  a  parallel  between  these  Greek 
names  and  the  tribal  fathers  of  Israel  is  a  very  hazardous  opera- 
tion. Have  we  any  such  histories  of  Hellen  and  the  other  four 
names  as  Genesis  contains  about  the  tribal  fathers  of  Israel  ? " 
(pp.  42,  43). 

One  might  remark  also  on  the  vague  and  fluctuating  notices 
of  the  supposititious  Eunomus  and  Eucosmus.  Eunomus,  e.g.,  is 
generally  given  as  the  father  of  Lycurgus. 

490 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  IV  491 


NOTE  B.— P.  100 

THE   COVENANT   WITH    ISRAEL 

KATTTZSCH  has  valuable  remarks  on  this  subject  in  his  art.  in 
"The  Religion  of  Israel"  in  Diet,  of  Bible  (Extra  VoL  p.  631). 
He  says : 

"  In  all  the  Pentateuchal  sources,  without  exception,  there  is 
a  uniform  tradition  to  the  effect  that  the  central  place  amongst  > 
the  incidents  at  Sinai  is  occupied  by  the  concluding  of  a  berith, 
commonly  rendered  Covenant.  ...  Is  all  this  now  to  be  set 
down  as  fiction,  a  carrying  back  of  much  later  theological  con- 
ceptions and  terminology,  to  a  time  for  which  no  real  tradition  was 
any  longer  extant  ?  This  is  a  view  to  which  the  present  writer 
cannot  assent,  having  regard  to  either  external  or  internal 
evidence." 

After  summarising  historical  evidence,  he  proceeds :  "  Would 
all  this  be  conceivable,  if  the  proclamation  of  Jahweh  as  the  God 
of  Israel — the  founding  of  the  Jahweh  religion — had  taken  place, 
so  to  speak,  fortuitously,  by  the  incidental  passing  of  the  name 
1  Jahweh '  from  mouth  to  mouth  t  Instead  of  any  theory  of  this 
kind,  we  get  the  strongest  impression  that  the  further  develop- 
ment of  the  religion  of  Israel  during  the  period  of  the  Judges 
and  of  the  monarchy  was  the  result  of  some  occurrence  of  a 
fundamental  kind  of  whose  solemnity  and  binding  force  and 
character  the  whole  nation  retained  a  lively  recollection.  And 
this  occurrence  can  have  been  nothing  but  the  solemn  pro- 
claiming of  the  God  who  had  manifested  Himself  in  wondrous 
ways  at  the  Helper  and  Deliverer  of  the  people  upon  a  definite 
occasion,  and  in  the  binding  of  the  people  to  do  His  will,  and 
to  worship  Him  alone.  Every  one  of  the  numerous  allusions 
(whether  in  the  Pentateuchal  sources,  the  Prophets,  or  the 
Psalms)  to  the  mighty  acts  of  Jahweh  at  the  Exodus,  how  with 
a  strong  hand  and  a  stretched  out  arm  He  brought  the  hosts  of 
Israel  out  of  the  house  of  bondage,  held  back  the  waves  of  the 
Red  Sea  from  Israel,  but  plunged  the  chariots  and  horsemen  of 
Pharaoh  into  the  waters, — every  one  of  these  allusions  is  at  the  < 
same  time  an  allusion  to  the  days  of  Sinai,  when  for  the  first 
time  these  mighty  acts  of  Jahweh  were  brought  to  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  people  in  their  true  greatness,  and  extolled  accordingly, 
and  made  the  occasion  of  a  solemn  confession  of  Jahweh  as  the 
God  of  Israel,  and  the  solemn  binding  of  the  people  to  do  His 
will."  Of.  also  Giesebrecht  on  Die  Geschichtlichkeit  de*  Sinai- 
bundet. 


492  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  IV 


J 


NOTE  C.— P.  104 


THEORIES   OF   THE   EXODUS 


THIS  is  how  Von  Bohlen  disposes  of  the  Exodus:  "Here  [in 
Egypt],  during  the  four  following  centuries,  which  the  popular 
traditions  pass  over  with  a  prudent  silence,  the  Hebrew  family 
increased  into  so  powerful  a  nation,  that  they  entered  the  field  as 
conquerors,  and  succeeded  at  length  in  establishing  themselves 
among  the  native  tribes  of  Palestine"  (Genesis,  i.  p.  16). 

Kuenen  accords  to  Manetho's  story  of  the  expulsion  of  the 
lepers  a  credence  he  is  unwilling  to  give  to  the  narrative  in 
Exodus,  and  thinks  that  the  Israelites  got  help  from  the  Hyksos. 
"The  Book  of  Exodus  does  not  mention  the  aid  given  by  the 
Hyksos.  .  .  .  But  a  few  slight  touches  furnish  us  with  proof 
that  the  Israelites  were  supported  by  the  nomadic  tribes  of 
Arabia,  that  is  to  say  by  the  Hyksos.  .  .  .  We  may  surely  take 
it  for  granted  that  the  Israelites  themselves  were  not  passive 
spectators  of  the  struggle  [between  Jahweh  and  the  gods  of 
Egypt] ;  that  a  conspiracy  was  formed  among  them ;  that  others 
besides  Moses  and  Aaron  played  a  part  in  it.  But  with  regard  to 
all  this  the  Book  of  Exodus  is  silent  or  confines  itself  to  a  few 
hints"  (Rel.  of  Israel,  i.  pp.  120-21,  124).  Of  the  Red  Sea 
deliverance :  "  What  actually  took  place  there  we  do  not  know. 
*  It  is  undoubtedly  founded  on  fact.  But  it  is  very  difficult  to  dis- 
tinguish the  actual  circumstances  of  the  occurrence  from  poetical 
embellishments.  We  will  not  risk  the  attempt."  (Ibid.  p.  126). 

Stade  allows  no  value  to  the  history  in  Exodus,  and  denies 
that  Israel  as  a  people  came  up  out  of  Egypt.  But  something,  he 
grants,  must  have  given  occasion  to  the  story.  "It  is  very 
possible  that  a  part  of  those  Hebrew  tribes  which  afterwards 
coalesced  into  the  people  of  Israel,  passing  into  Egypt,  lived 
there,  and  fell  under  bondage  to  the  Egyptians.  With  the  aid  of 
the  related  nomadic  tribes  inhabiting  the  Sinaitic  peninsula 
outside  the  kingdom  of  Egypt,  they  may  have  fought  their  way 
to  freedom  under  Moses"  (Gescldchte,  1887,  pp.  129-30).  In 
the  1881  edition  of  his  Geschichte,  Stade  is  even  more  emphatic. 
"  If  any  Hebrew  clan,"  he  says,  "  once  dwelt  in  Egypt,  no  one 
knows  its  name"  (p.  129). 

Colenso  adopts  Kuenen's  theories  as  "very  probably  the 
basis  upon  which  the  Scripture  story  of  the  Exodus  has  been 
founded."  "  No  doubt,"  he  says,  "the  Israelites  on  their  march 
to  Canaan  experienced  formidable  difficulties,  perhaps  in  crossing 
an  arm  of  the  Red  Sea,  and  certainly  in  their  passage  through 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  IV  493 

the  wilderness — the  reminiscences  of  which  may  have  been 
handed  down  from  age  to  age,  and  given  rise  to  some  of  the 
miraculous  stories  in  the  narrative,  while  others  are  merely  the 
result  of  the  natural  growth  of  legendary  matter,  or  are  due  to 
the  inventive  genius  of  the  writer  or  writers"  (Pent.  vi.  p.  601). 

Budde  accepts  the  Exodus  by  the  help  of  God  as  an 
incontestable  truth,  on  the  strength  of  Israel's  own  self-conscious- 
ness.  "  All  that  can  be  considered  doubtful  is  whether  it  was 
the  whole  people  of  Israel  that  fell  under  the  Egyptian  bondage, 
or  Joseph  alone  (that  is  to  say,  the  tribes  of  Ephraim  and 
Manasseh,  including  Benjamin) "  (Rel.  of  Israel,  p.  10).  No  light 
is  thrown  on  the  how  of  the  deliverance  which,  in  the  tradition, 
naturally  "  bears  the  stamp  of  miracle  "  (p.  13). 

See  summary  of  Wellhausen's  views  in  Bennett's  art.  "  Moses  " 
in  Diet,  of  Bible,  iii.  p.  445. 


NOTE  D.— P.  106 

PATRIARCHAL   CHRONOLOGY 

ESPECIAL  exception  is  taken  by  Dr.  Driver  to  the  patriarchal 
chronology  "as  it  stands."  One  example  may  be  given.  In  an 
article  in  the  Contemporary  Review  (Ivii.  p.  221),  he  instances  as 
a  chronological  impossibility  in  the  life  of  Isaac  that,  "  according 
to  the  chronology  of  the  Book  of  Genesis,  he  [Isaac]  must  have 
been  lying  on  his  deathbed  for  eighty  years."  This,  however, 
supposes  that  Isaac,  at  the  blessing  of  Jacob  and  Esau  (Gen.  xxvii.) 
was  only  a  hundred  years  old,  and  not,  as  ordinarily  assumed,  and 
as  the  remaining  data  combine  to  show,  a  hundred  and  thirty-nine 
(cf.  Gen.  xli.  46 ;  xlv.  6  ;  xlvii.  9,  etc.).  Neither  was  he  on  his 
"deathbed"  all  this  whUe.  The  objection  is  an  old  one  (Von 
Bohlen,  etc.),  and  has  frequently  been  replied  to.  On  any 
hypothesis,  if  Isaac  did  not  die  till  after  Jacob's  return  from 
Mesopotamia  (Gen.  xxxv.),  a  long  period  must  have  elapsed  between 
the  blessing  and  his  death. 

If  the  patriarchs  were  real  persons,  their  lives  span  the 
interval  between  the  age  of  Hammurabi  and  the  time  of  the 
descent  into  Egypt ;  with  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  added, 
we  get  the  interval  from  Abraham  to  the  Exodus  (see  p.  422).  The 
lives  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  must  therefore  have  been  as 
long  as  the  narrative  represents.  This  cannot  be  pronounced 
"impossible,"  since,  even  in  modern  times,  instances  of  extreme 
longevity,  though  rare,  are  still  found.  It  would  be  wrong,  how- 


494  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  IV 

ever,  to  transpose  our  modern  conditions  into  times  to  which,  prob- 
ably, they  did  not  apply.  In  Egypt,  according  to  the  authorities,  a 
hundred  and  ten  years  was  regarded  as  the  number  of  a  perfect  life 
(cf.  Ebers,  art.  "  Joseph "  in  Smith's  Did.  of  Bible,  i.,  2nd  ed. 
(1893)  p.  1804 ;  Vigouroux,  La  Bible  et  les  Decouvertes  Modemes, 
ii.  p.  182;  Tomkins,  Life  and  Times  of  Joseph,  pp.  78,  135,  etc.). 
According  to  some,  the  venerable  moralist  Ptah-hotep,  of  the  fifth 
dynasty  (see  below,  p.  397),  claims  to  be  already  that  age  when 
he  wrote  his  book  (Birch,  Egypt,  p.  50;  Tomkins,  p.  135,  etc.). 
This  was  the  age  of  Joseph  at  his  death  (Gen.  1.  26). 

On  some  striking  modern  instances  of  longevity,  see  Tomkins, 
Joseph,  pp.  77-8,  and  the  list  might  readily  be  extended.  Cf. 
also  Eeusch,  Nature  and  the  Bible,  ii.  p.  249. 


NOTE  E.— P.  112 
GUNKEL'S  THEORY  OP  PATRIARCHAL  HISTORT 

GUNKEL'S  own  theory  of  the  patriarchal  history,  it  must  be 
allowed,  is  not  less  arbitrary  and  untenable  than  any  which  he 
criticises.  The  "  legends  "  which,  according  to  him,  compose  the 
Book  of  Genesis,  he  holds  to  be  no  peculiar  product  of  Israel,  but 
to  be  derived  in  the  main  from  Babylonian  and  Canaanitish 
sources.  They  originated  separately,  he  thinks,  were  long  sung 
or  recited,  and  were  finally  written  down  singly ;  only  gradually 
they  coalesced,  and  became  gathered  round  leading  personages  as 
we  find  them.  The  theory  might  be  described  as  an  explanation 
of  the  patriarchal  history  on  the  ancient  principle  of  a  fortuitous 
concourse  of  atoms.  \To  the  analysis  of  verses  he  adds  analysis  of 
personalities.  The  different  nanaes  of  God — Elohim,  El-Shaddai, 
Jahweh — denote  originally  different  gods.  Jacob  and  Israel  are 
different  legendary  persons.  Noah  is  composed  out  of  three 
originally  distinct  figures;  Cain  originally  out  of  three,  etc. 
Still  the  stories,  he  holds,  are  very  old ;  the  legend-formation  was 
completed  by  the  latter  days  of  the  Judges  (c.  1200  B.C.).  See 
his  Die  Sagen  der  Genesis  (Introd.  to  Commentary),  passim. 
What  one  fails  to  find  is  any  explanation  of  how  the  monotheism 
which  is  recognised  as  present  in  Genesis  came  to  be  developed 
out  of  these  casually  coalescing  legends,  or  any  perception  of  the 
deeper  ideas  in  the  Genesis  narratives,  or  of  their  organic  relation 
with  the  rest  of  Scripture.  In  this  respect  Gunkel  stands  behind 
many  of  those  whom  he  criticises.  On  the  other  hand,  with  all 
bis  Babylonian  leanings,  he  writes  vigorously  in  his  Israel  und 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  IV  495 

Babylonian  on  behalf  of  the  independence  of  the  religious 
conceptions  of  Israel,  as  against  Fried.  Delitzsch  and  others  of 
that  tendency. 


NOTE  F.— P.  114 

THE    NAME   JEHOVAH    IK   THE   PATRIARCHAL   AGE 

IT  seems  to  us,  apart  from  doubtful  Babylonian  speculations 
(see  above,  p.  409),  that  there  are  preponderating  reasons  for 
regarding  Jehovah  (Yahweh)  as  really  a  very  old  personal  name 
of  God  in  the  patriarchal  families.  The  J  writer  uses  it  freely, 
but  is  far  from  putting  it  indiscriminately  into  the  mouths  of  the 
characters  of  his  story.  In  Gen.  iii.,  e.g.,  "  Elohim  "  is  employed 
in  conversation.  In  Gen.  ix.  26,  we  have  the  compound  form, 
"  Jehovah,  Elohim  of  Shem "  (cf.  Gen.  xiv.  22 ;  and  the  similar 
forms  in  chap.  xxiv.  3,  7,  12,  27,  etc.).  In  Gen.  xv.  2,  8, 
Abraham  addresses  God  as  "Adonai  Jehovah,"  and  in  his 
intercession  for  Sodom  as  "Adonai"  (chap,  xviii.  27, 31,  32).  In 
the  middle  chapters  (xxiv.-xxxiv.)  "  Jehovah  "  occurs  frequently 
in  connection  with  Laban,  Isaac,  Rebekah,  Jacob,  Rachel,  etc. 
From  chap.  xxxv.  to  the  end  of  the  book  it  practically  disappears 
in  speech  (an  instance  in  Jacob's  blessing,  chap.  xlix.  18).  It  may 
have  become  disused  in  Egypt.  See  further  on  the  antiquity  of 
this  divine  name,  p.  497  below ;  and  on  the  usage  of  the  name, 
chap.  vii.  pp.  221  S. 


NOTES  TO   CHAPTER  V 


NOTE  A.— P.  128 

EARLY    IDEAS   OP   GOD 

MAN'S  earliest  ideas  of  God  were  not,  as  is  commonly  assumed, 
his  poorest.  There  is  really  no  proof  that  man's  religious  history 
began  with  fetishism,  ghost- worship,  totemism,  or  any  of  the 
other  superstitions  with  which  "primitive  religion"  is  usually 
identified.  Fetishism  is  admitted  by  the  best  anthropologists  to 
be  a  "  degeneration "  of  religion,  and  an  abundance  of  anthro- 
pological testimony  could  be  adduced  against  the  sufficiency  of 
each  of  the  other  theories  in  turn.  '£To  savage  tribes  are  found 
who  do  not  seem  to  have  higher  ideas  of  God  along  with  their 
superstitions  (cf.  A.  Lang's  Making  of  Religion).  Man  does  not 
creep  up  from  fetishism,  through  polytheism,  to  monotheism, 
but  polytheism  represents  rather  the  refraction  of  an  original 
undifferentiated  sense,  or  consciousness,  or  perception,  of  the 
divine  (cf.  Rom.  L  19-23). 

In  historical  religions,  accordingly,  the  general  law,  enunciated 
•by  Principal  Fairbaim,  holds  good  :  "  the  younger  the  polytheism, 
the  fewer  its  gods"  (Studies  in  Phil,  of  Eel.  p.  22).  In  the 
oldest  religions,  without  exception,  along  with  the  polytheism, 
we  find  a  monotheistic  background. 

The  oldest  texts  in  Egypt  express  a  monotheistic  belief 
(cf.  Renouf,  Rel.  of  Egypt,  pp.  90-91 ;  Budge,  Egyptian  Religion, 
chap.  i). 

x  The  Babylonian  religion,  it  is  coming  to  be  generally  admitted, 
had  a  monotheistic  strain  (cf.  Winckler,  above,  p.  409).  The 
discovery  of  the  Code  of  Hammurabi  (cf.  above,  p.  410)  has 
strengthened  that  belief.  "  The  position  of  Ilu  as  supreme  God, 
at  least  in  the  ideas  of  Hammurabi,"  writes  C.  H.  W.  Johns,  "  is 
certain,  despite  recent  dicta  that  there  is  no  trace  of  a  supreme 
El  in  Babylonia"  (Expos.  Times,  March  1903,  p.  258). 

496 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  V  497 

Zoroastrianism  was  formally  dualistic,  hut  in  the  elevation  of  • 
its  idea  of   Ahura-Mazda   it  approached,  if  it   did  not  actually 
attain,  a  form  of  practical  monotheism  (cf.  Expos.   Times,  Jan. 
1905,  pp.  185  ff.). 

Vedism  had  few  gods,  while  later  Hinduism  has  an  incalcul-x 
able  number.  Behind  the  Vedic  polytheism  there  stands  the 
name  for  God  common  to  all  branches  of  the  Aryan  family  (Deva 
»Zeus  =  Deus),  and  the  proper  name  of  one  God  (Dyaus  Pitar 
—  Zeus  Pater). 

China  from  the  oldest  times  knew  and  reverenced  Shang-ti, s 
the  Supreme  God,  or  Tien,  Heaven  (cf.  Legge,  Rdigions  of 
China). 

The  monotheistic  strain  in  Greece  and  Rome  was  never  lost, 
and  comes  out  in  the  early  simpler  forms  of  belief  and  worship, 
in  the  mysteries,  in  the  dramatists  and  sages,  in  later  Stoical  and 
Platonic  teaching. 

Behind  the  Arabian  idolatry  of  Mohammed's  time  was  the 
conception  of  Allah  (cf.  Hommel,  Anc.  Heb.  Trad.  p.  292; 
cf.  pp.  82,  88). 

The  idea  that  the  conception  of  one  God  was  too  lofty  for  the* 
Israelites  to  have  attained  it,  even  through  revelation,  must  there- 
fore be  abandoned  as  untenable.  In  Hommel's  words:  "It 
becomes  clearer  every  day  that  the  Semites — and  more  particularly 
the  Western  Semites — had  from  the  beginning  a  much  purer 
conception  of  the  Deity  than  was  possessed  by  any  of  the  other 
races  of  antiquity,  such  aa  the  Suiuerians  or  Aryans "  (I I/id.  pp. 
292,  308-10). 


NOTE  B.— P.  129 

ANTIQUITY    OP   THE    NAME   JEHOVAH 

THE  following  are  a  few  indications  of  opinions  of  critics  as  to  a 
pro-Mosaic  use  of  the  name  Jehovah  (Yahweh). 

Kuenen  says :  "  Moses  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  have 
invented  the  name  *  Yahweh ' ;  in  all  probability  it  was  already 
in  use,  among  however  limited  a  circle"  (JRel.  of  Israel,  i.  pp. 
279-80). 

Wellhausen  Bays :  "  Jehovah  is  to  be  regarded  as  having  been 
originally  a  family  or  tribal  god(f),  either  of  the  family  to  which 
Moses  belonged,  or  of  the  tribe  of  Joseph  "  (Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  433). 

Schultz  says :  "  It  is  in  itself  more  likely  that  siu-h  a  name 
was  not  invented,  but  simply  found  by  Moses"  (O.T.  Theol.  ii. 
p.  137). 

3* 


498  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  V 

Driver  says :  "  The  total  absence  of  proper  names  compounded 
with  Yah  wen  in  the  patriarchal  period  makes  it  probable  that, 
though  not  absolutely  new  in  Moses'  time,  it  was  still  current 
previously  only  in  a  limited  circle,  —  possibly,  as  has  been 
suggested,  in  the  family  of  Moses"  (Genesis,  p.  xix;  cf.  pp.  xlvii 
and  xlix,  and  references). 

Many  now  trace  the  name  back  as  far  as  Babylonia.  Cf. 
Driver,  p.  xlix,  and  see  above,  p.  409.  The  one  thing  not  proved 
is  that  it  ever  denoted  in  Israel  a  merely  tribal  god. 


NOTE  C.— P.  139 

PROFESSOR  W.  R.  SMITH'S  THEORY   OP   SACRIFICE 

THIS  ingenious  scholar  develops  his  theory  of  the  totem-origin 
of  sacrifice  in  his  Religion  of  the  Semites  (cf.  especially  pp. 
247,  257,  262-4,  266-7,  269,  271,  277).  The  theory  resembles 
some  others  in  connecting  the  sacrifice  with  the  idea  of  food  for 
the  gods  (pp.  207,  218),  but  it  works  from  a  different  basis,  and 
gives  the  act  of  sacrifice  a  different  interpretation.  (1)  The  god, 
in  this  theory,  is  conceived  of  as  an  animal,  from  whom  the 
clan  derives  its  descent  (p.  425).  (2)  The  primitive  mind,  it  is 
assumed,  does  not  distinguish  accurately  between  gods,  men,  and 
animals.  The  god,  the  members  of  the  clan,  and  the  animals  of 
the  sacred  species,  are  all  viewed  as  of  one  blood  or  stock,  or  as 
embraced  in  the  bond  of  kinship  (p.  269).  (3)  The  form  in 
which  kinship  is  declared,  and  the  bond  of  fellowship  sealed,  is  a 
feast  (pp.  247,  257).  (4)  The  peculiarity  of  the  religious  feast, 
however,  is  that  in  it  an  animal  is  sacrificed  (p.  262).  As  Dr. 
Smith  says:  "A  religious  banquet  implies  a  victim  .  .  .  the 
slaughter  of  a  victim  must  have  been  in  early  times  the  only 
thing  that  brought  the  clan  together  for  a  sacred  meal "  (p.  262). 
Conversely  :  "  Every  slaughter  was  a  clan  sacrifice,  i.e.,  &  domestic 
animal  was  not  slain  except  to  procure  the  material  for  a  public 
meal  of  kinsmen  "  (p.  263).  (5)  The  last  point  is,  that  the  fact 
that  the  slaughter  of  such  an  animal  was  sanctioned  for  a  religious 
feast  implies  that  it  was  a  sacred,  or  totem,  animal,  and  itself 
belonged  to  the  circle  of  kinship. 

It  is  difficult  to  criticise  a  theory  which  rests  so  much  on 
hypothetical  construction,  and  seems  opposed  to  all  the  real 
evidence  we  possess  as  to  the  Semitic  ideas  of  the  gods,  and 
their  relation  to  their  worshippers.  It  will  need  much  stronger 
evidence  to  convince  us  that  the  Semite  peoples  generally  passed 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  V  499 

through  a  totem  stage,  and  that  the  God  of  Israol  was  originally 
a  totem-deity,  of  animal  form,  whoso  blood  the  tribes  of  Israel 
were  supposed  to  share.  It  is  anything  but  proved  that  the 
early  Semites  knew  nothing,  as  this  theory  asserts,  of  domestic, 
but  only  of  clan  life ;  that  they  knew  nothing  of  individual  and 
domestic  sacrifices  (Abel,  Noah,  Abraham) ;  that  gods,  animals, 
and  men,  were  at  first  all  held  to  be  of  common  kinship ;  that 
"unclean  animals"  were  totem  animals,  i.e.,  those  whose  life  was 
sacred,  with  many  more  assumptions. 

But,  to  keep  to  the  one  point  of  sacrifice,  it  is  pertinent  to 
ask — Where  is  the  proof  that  the  animals  sacrificed  had  this 
character  of  totems  1  (1)  They  were  not  "unclean"  animals; 
on  the  contrary,  only  "clean"  animals  were  permitted. 
(2)  The  victims  were  not  confined  to  one  class  or  species  of 
animals,  as  on  the  totem-theory  seems  necessary.  Sheep,  goats, 
calves,  bulls,  pigeons,  were  all  used  as  sacrifice ;  but  plainly  all 
could  not  be  totems.  Besides,  how  came  many  distinct  tribes  to 
have  one  totem  t  (3)  Why  should  the  totem  -  animal,  of  all 
creatures,  be  sacrificed?  Ought  not  the  principle  of  kinship  to 
have  protected  it  t  How  should  the  god,  or  clansmen,  be  supposed 
to  find  satisfaction  in  feeding  on  the  flesh  of  one  of  their  own 
stock  f  The  closer  the  bond  of  kinship  is  drawn,  the  greater 
becomes  the  difficulty.  (4)  As  explaining  sacrifice  in  Israel,  the 
theory  takes  no  account  of  those  ideas  on  which  the  ritual  of 
sacrifice  rests  in  this  religion,  which  are  as  unique  as  everything 
else  about  it  It  gives  no  help  to  the  explaining  of  the  expiatory 
or  propitiatory  aspect  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices,  in  which  the 
peculiar  virtue  of  these  sacrifices  was  believed  to  consist.  The 
theory  seems  to  us  to  be  baseless  in  itself,  and  to  break  down 
whenever  tests  from  evidence  can  be  applied  to  it. 


NOTE  D.— P.  141 

SACRIFICE   OP   CHILDREN    IN   CANAAN 

THB  recent  excavations  at  Gezer  in  Palestine  afford  the  most 
interesting  illustrations  yet  obtained  of  the  sacrifice  of  children 
in  Canaan.  The  site  of  Gezer  was  identified  in  1871,  and  ex- 
cavations were  commenced  by  the  Palestinian  Exploration  Fund 
in  1902,  under  the  charge  of  Professor  Macalister,  of  Cambridge. 
The  result  has  been  that  seven  ancient  cities  have  been  unearthed, 
one  below  the  other  till  the  last  foundations  have  been  reached. 
The  city,  as  historical  notices  also  prove,  is  one  of  the  most 


5oo  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  V 

ancient  in  Canaan.  Its  earliest  inhabitants  were  cave-dwellers 
of  the  neolithic  age.  After  them  came  the  Semitic  Amorites, 
about  2500  B.C.,  scarabs  of  the  eleventh  dynasty  of  Egypt  being 
found  among  the  remains.  These  were  dispossessed  about  1700 
B.o.  by  a  second  Semitic  race  —  the  Canaanites  of  the  Tel  el- 
Amarna  letters  and  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Israelites 
conquered  Gezer  under  Joshua,  but  could  not  keep  it,  and 
remained  there  mingled  with  the  Canaanites  till  the  time  of 
Solomon  (Josh.  xvi.  10).  About  950  B.C.  the  city  was  conquered 
and  burnt  by  the  king  of  Egypt,  and  presented  to  Solomon's 
wife  (1  Kings  ix.  16).  It  was  rebuilt  by  Solomon  (ver.  17). 

The  excavations  bring  to  light  painful  testimony  of  the 
custom  of  sacrifice  of  children.  In  the  Amorite  period  (2500- 
1700  B.C.),  the  ground  beneath  the  "high  place"  of  the  city 
was  found  to  be  filled  with  large  earthen  jars  containing  the 
bones  of  newborn  infants.  They  were  evidently  "  firstborns " 
who  had  been  sacrificed  to  Astarte.  Similar  jars  containing  the 
remains  of  infants  were  found  beneath  the  walls  of  houses.  The 
sacrifice  in  this  case  was  to  secure  good  luck  when  a  new  building 
was  erected.  This  illustrates  the  statement  in  1  Kings  xvi.  34 
about  the  action  of  Hiel  the  Bethelite  at  his  refounding  of  Jericho. 
The  contrast  in  the  religion  of  Israel  is  seen  in  the  fact  that 
firstborns  were  to  be  dedicated  to  Jehovah  (Ex.  xxii.  29).  The 
practices  above  noted  continue  during  the  Canaanite  period, 
though  lamps  and  bowls  begin  to  be  used  as  a  substitute  for 
human  sacrifice.  After  the  Israelitish  occupation  of  Canaan  the 
traces  of  infant  sacrifice  still  further  decline,  though,  as  a 
Canaanitish  city,  Gezer  is  still  marked  by  this  abomination. 
Latterly  the  lamp  and  bowl  deposits  take  its  place.  There  is 
nothing  whatever  in  all  this  to  implicate  the  Israelitish  religion 
in  sacrifice  of  children.  (See  publications  of  the  Palestinian 
Exploration  Fund,  and  an  interesting  article  by  Professor  Lewis 
Bayles  Paton,  Ph.D.,  Hartford,  Director  of  the  American  School 
of  Oriental  Research  in  Palestine,  in  the  Homiletic  Review, 
Dec.  1904.) 


NOTE  E.— P.  143 

H.    P.    SMITH   ON   THE    BRAZEN    SERPENT 

THE  remarks  of  this  author  on  Hezekiah's  destruction  of  the 
brazen  serpent  of  Moses  (2  Kings  xviii.  4)  deserve  quotation  as 
an  illustration  of  critical  methods  : — 

"The  clause  which  Moses  made  refers  to  a  well-known  narra- 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  V  501 

live  in  the  account  of  the  wilderness  wandering.  Here  we  r« -a«l 
that  the  people  were  bitten  by  serpents.  Moses  is  therefore 
commanded  to  make  a  copper  serpent,  and  raise  it  upon  a  pole. 
Whoever  is  bitten  and  looks  at  the  serpent  is  healed.  It  must 
be  clear  that  we  have  here  a  survival  from  the  primitive  totemism 
of  Israel.  .  .  . 

"  Why  Moses  should  have  made  such  an  image  for  a  people 
notoriously  prone  to  idolatry  is  a  question  that  need  not  be 
discussed.  How  such  an  image,  if  made  by  Moses,  came  into  the 
temple  is  also  difficult  to  conceive.  We  are  tempted,  therefore, 
to  suppose  the  words  which  Moses  made  a  later  addition  to  the 
narrative  and  not  the  expression  of  Hezekiah's  belief  or  of  the 
belief  of  bis  contemporaries.  In  that  case  we  must  treat  the 
Nehushtan  as  a  veritable  idol  of  the  house  of  Israel,  which  had 
been  worshipped  in  the  temple  from  the  time  of  its  erection, 
flat  pent-worship  is  so  widespread  that  we  should  be  surprised 
not  to  find  traces  of  it  in  Israel.  We  know  of  a  Serpent's  Stone 
near  Jerusalem  which  was  the  site  of  a  sanctuary  (1  Kings  L  9)J 
and  this  sanctuary  was  dedicated  to  Yahweh.  This  parallel 
makes  us  conclude  that  the  copper  serpent  of  the  temple  was  also 
a  symbol  of  Yahweh.  If  this  be  so,  it  may  be  attributed  to  Moses, 
though  in  a  different  way  from  that  taken  by  the  Hebrew  author ; 
for  Yahweh  was  introduced  to  Israel  by  Moses.  Probably  the 
serpent  was  thought  to  be  a  congenial  symbol  of  the  god  of  the 
lightning — and  that  in  the  desert  days  Yahweh  was  the  god  of 
tin-  lightning,  or  of  the  thunderstorm,  seems  well  made  out" — 
Hi.<t.  of  O.T.  pp.  239-40.  One  does  not  know  whether  to 
marvel  most  at  the  logic  of  this  passage,  or  at  the  ground*  of  the 
reasoning. 


NOTE  F.— P.  144 

DIU.MANN    ON    IMAGE-WORSHIP 

THK  following  statement  from  Dr.  Dillniann  (Exn<J.-Ler.  pp. 
208-9)  may  be  compared  with  those  of  Kautzsch  and  others 
about  image-worship  in  Israel : — 

"It  cannot  with  good  reason  be  maintained  that  such  a 
prohibition  involving  the  idea  of  the  possibility  of  making  any 
representation  of  God,  as  well  as  His  invisibility  and  spirituality, 
is  too  advanced  for  Moses'  time,  and  his  stage  of  knowledge,  and 
therefore  cannot  have  been  given  by  him,  but  must  have  been 
just  introduced  into  the  Decalogue  at  a  much  later  date.  Apart 
from  Ex.  xxxii.,  where  the  narrative  attributes  to  Moses  a  clear 


502  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  V 

perception  of  the  unlawfulness  of  an  image  of  Jehovah,  it  is 
certain,  in  the  first  place,  that  in  the  traditions  of  their  fathers 
a  cultus  without  images  is  ascribed  to  the  patriarchs;  and, 
secondly,  that  in  the  post-Mosaic  period,  it  was  a  recognised 
principle,  at  least  at  the  central  sanctuary  of  the  entire  people, 
and  at  the  temple  of  Solomon,  that  no  representation  was  to  be 
made  of  Jehovah.  The  worship  of  the  image  of  Jehovah  at 
Sinai  (Ex.  xxxii.),  in  the  time  of  the  judges,  and  in  the  kingdom 
of  the  ten  tribes,  does  not  prove  that  the  prohibition  of  images 
was  unknown,  but  only  that  it  was  very  difficult  to  secure  its 
proper  recognition  by  the  mass  of  the  people,  especially  of  the 
northern  tribes,  who  were  more  Canaanitishly  disposed.  Or 
rather,  it  was  for  centuries  an  object  of  contention  between  the 
stricter  and  more  lax  party, — the  latter  holding  that  it  forbade 
only  the  images  of  false  gods,  the  former  that  it  likewise  forbade 
any  image  of  Jehovah.  Prophets  such  as  Amos  and  Hosea,  who 
contended  against  the  images  of  the  calves,  at  Bethel  and  at  Dan, 
never  announced  the  principle  that  no  representation  can  be 
made  of  Jehovah  as  anything  new,  but  simply  presupposed  it  as 
known.  However  far  we  go  back  in  the  post-Mosaic  history, 
we  find  it  already  existing,  at  least  as  practically  carried  into 
effect  at  the  central  sanctuary ;  from  whom  then  can  it  have 
proceeded  but  from  the  legislator,  Moses  himself  ? " 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER   VI 

NOTE  A.— P.  153 

OBJECTIONS   TO   MOSAIC  ORIGIN    OF   DECALOGUE 

TUB  following  is  a  brief  summary  of  objections  to  the  Decalogue 
from  Addis  (Doca.  of  Hex.  i.  pp.  139-40): — 

"  It  must  have  arisen  long  after  the  Israelites  had  passed 
from  a  nomad  to  a  settled  life.  .  .  .  The  sabbath  implies  the' 
settled  life  of  agriculture.  .  .  .  Moreover,  if  the  second  '  word ' 
be  an  integral  part  of  the  whole,  the  Decalogue  must  harve  arisen 
after  the  worship  of  Yahweh  in  the  form  of  an  ox  was  considered 
unlawful  To  this  mode  of  worship  neither  Elijah  nor  Elisha 
seems  to  have  made  any  objection  [t],  and  it  is  very  doubtful 
whether  any  protest  was  made  against  it  before  the  reiterated 
and  energetic  protest  of  Hosea,  We  may  then  conjecture  that 
the  Decalogue  arose  in  the  eighth,  or  perhaps  the  seventh  century 
before  Christ." 

See  in  reply  to  this  representation  the  statement  by  Dillmann 
in  previous  note,  p.  501. 

NOTE  B.— P.  176 

THE   FORCE   OF   EXODUS   XX.   34 

As  stated  in  the  text,  Professor  W.  R  Smith  seems  to  insist,  in 
opposition  to  Dr.  W.  H.  Green,  that  Ex.  xx.  24  can  only  bear 
the  meaning  "in  all  places,"  in  the  sense  of  a  number  of  co- 
existent sanctuaries  (Prophett,  p.  394).  To  this  Professor  Green 
replies: — 

"  The  collective  use  of  the  noun  in  such  a  construction  is  not 
denied.  But  attention  is  called  to  the  significant  circumstance 
that  where  the  conception  is  that  of  a  coexisting  plurality,  '  all 


504  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  VI 

the  places'  is  expressed  in  Hebrew  by  the  plural  noun  (e.g.,  T)eut. 
xii.  2  ;  1  Sam.  vii.  16  ;  xxx.  31 ;  Ezra  i.  4 ;  Jer.  viii.  3 ;  xxiv.  9 ; 
xxix.  14;  xl.  12;  xlv.  5;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  12);  while  in  the  other 
two  passages  in  which  the  phrase  is  used  with  a  singular  noun, 
the  reference  is  not  to  places  viewed  jointly,  but  regarded 
successively  (Gen.  xx.  13;  Deut.  xi.  24).  The  words  are  used 
in  a  different  sense,  Gen.  xviii.  26  "  (Moses  and  Prophets,  p.  311). 


NOTE  C.— P.  179 

FREEDOM   UNDER  THE   LAW 

>  IT  is  a  mistake  to  regard  the  Law  as  a  rigid,  inflexible  system, 
which  admitted  of  no  modification  of  development  in  details  to 
suit  circumstances  (thus  W.  R.  Smith  represents  "  the  traditional 
view,"  O.T.  in  J.  C.,  pp.  227-8).  The  law  was  made  for  man,  not 
man  for  the  law,  and  the  spirit  at  all  times,  in  the  eyes  of  God, 
was  above  the  letter  (1  Sam.  xv.  22).  The  psalmist  most  devote* 
to  the  law  "  walked  at  liberty  "  under  it  (Ps.  cxix.  45).  There 
was  within  the  law  abundant  scope  for  development,  and  the 
letter  of  the  law  itself  could,  where  necessary,  give  place  to  the 
spirit.  Thus,  the  law  for  the  age  of  service  for  the  Levites  was 
modified  (if  the  same  kind  of  service  was  intended)  from  thirty 
years  to  twenty-five  (Num.  iv.  23,  30,  35 ;  viii.  24) ;  and  David 
again  modified  it  to  twenty  (1  Chron.  xxiii.  24,  27).  In  Num. 
ix.  6-12  a  second  passover  was  allowed  for  those  who  were  unclean 
or  absent  at  the  proper  time.  The  shewbread  at  Nob  (1  Sam. 
xxi.  1-6)  was,  as  Christ  points  out  (Matt.  xii.  3-7),  given  under 
necessity  to  David  and  his  men,  though  it  was  not  lawful  for 
any  but  priests  to  eat  of  it.  In  the  observance  of  Hezekiah's 
passover  we  have  repeated  infractions  of  the  letter  of  the  law — 
noted,  too,  in  Chronicles  (2  Chron.  xxix.  34;  xxx.  17,  19). 


NOTE  D.— P.  182 

THE   GENEALOGY    OF   ZADOK 

ON  the  genealogy  of  Zadok  see  1  Chron.  vi.  8,  53;  xxiv.  3; 
xx  vii.  17.  Wellhausen  denies  to  Zadok,  however,  an  Aaronic, 
not  to  say  Levitical  descent  (Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  126-43).  His 


NOTES  TO  CHAITKK  VI  505 

counter-theory  is  thai  Zadok  was  no  Aaronite,  but  that,  after  the 
setting  aside  of  the  house  of  Eli,  there  came  in  a  new  hereditary 
priesthood  at  Jerusalem — "  at  first  parvenus  and  afterwards  the 
most  legitimate  of  the  legitimate,"  and  that  the  derivation  of 
Zadok  from  Aaron  in  1  Chronicles  is  a  fiction  aiming  at  the 
legitimising  of  the  newcomers.  This  construction  Delitesch 
characterises  as  "a  manufacture  of  history  (Oeschichtgmacherei) 
which  builds  houses  on  deceitful  fancies  "  (Luthardt's  Zeitschrift, 
1880,  p.  284).  Cf.  Kittel,  Hist,  of  Hebs.  I  p.  124;  ii.  p.  182 ; 
Van  Hoonacker,  Sacerdoce  Levitique,  pp.  166  S. 


NOTE  E.— P.  184 
DAVID'S  SONS  AS  PRIESTS 

THE  meaning  of  the  term  "  priest "  in  the  three  passages  cited  is 
obscure.  Delitzsch  says :  "  Only  crass  self-deception  can  under- 
stand it  of  sacrificing  priests,  who  have  been  mentioned  just 
before"  (Luthardt's  Zeittchrift,  1880,  p.  63).  The  common 
view  that  "  priest "  is  used  here  in  some  secondary  or  honorary 
sense  of  royal  officials  (Ewald,  Delitzsch,  Klostermann,  Baudissin, 
Movers,  etc. ;  R.  V.  marg.),  is  supported  by  the  parallel 
passage,  1  Chron.  xviii.  17,  which  need  not  be  set  down  to  the 
motive  of  recognising  none  but  Aaron ic  priests,  but  must 
represent  a  general  way  of  understanding  the  expression,  and 
by  the  LXX.  Dr.  Driver,  however,  positively  rejects  such 
explanation  (Xotes  on  Samuel,  pp.  219-20,  293-4;  so  the 
Wellhauseu  school  generally) ;  and  there  are  certainly  difficulties 
in  proving  this  exceptional  use.  It  is  a  case  in  which,  as  V;m 
Hoonacker  argues,  there  is  some  ground  (at  least  as  regards 
David's  sons)  for  suspecting  the  text.  Inspection  will  show  that 
the  four  passages,  2  Sam.  viii.  16-18;  xx.  23-26;  1  Kings  iv. 
2-6;  1  Chron.  xviii.  15-18,  are  closely  related:  represent,  in 
fact,  the  same  list,  with  some  changes  of  names  under  Solomon. 
But  it  is  also  evident  that  there  is  some  confusion  and  corruption 
in  the  copying.  The  order  is  not  always  the  same :  "  Ahimelech 
the  son  of  Abiathar"  in  2  Sam.  viii.  17  (and  1  Chron.)  stands 
for  "  Abiathar  the  son  of  Ahimelech  " ;  and  ver.  18,  in  which  the 
words  "  David's  sons  "  occur,  is  in  other  respects  admittedly  corrupt 
(it  reads,  "Benaiah  the  son  of  Jehoiada,  and  the  Cherethitrs 
and  the  Pelethites ").  There  is  nothing  about  "David's  sons" 
in  the  corresponding  passage  in  chap,  xx.,  but  instead,  "  And  Ira 


So6  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  Vl 

also  the  Jairite  was  priest  unlo  D&vrf :'  (cf.  "  Zabutl  th  -  son  of 
Nathan  was  priest"  in  1  Kinga  iv.  5).  In  the  transpositions 
of  the  text,  words  or  names  may  have  dropped  out  or  got 
changed,  or  "  David's  sons "  m^y  be  a  corruption  of  other  words 
altogether.  This,  of  course,  cannot  be  proved  either. 


NOTES   TO    CHAPTER   VII 

NOTE  A.— P.  200 

THE  SELF-CONFIDENCE  OF  CRITICS 

DELITZSCH  speaks  somewhere  of  "  the  omnipotence  which  resides 
in  the  ink  of  a  German  scholar  "  :  and  nothing  strikes  one  more 
in  the  recent  literature  of  criticism  than  the  unbounded  confidence 
with  which  the  most  disputable  statements  are  made.  Our  pages 
are  full  of  illustrations.  The  peremptoriness  of  Wellhausen  is 
proverbial.  E.g.,  the  Levitieal  cities  are  "  demonstrably  a 
metamorphosis  of  the  old  Bamoth  (high  places) "  (Hist,  of  Israel, 
p.  37).  "'House  of  God'  is  never  anything  but  the  house  of- 
an  image"  (p.  130).  The  trick  of  style  is  one  easily  learned,  and 
has  infected  not  a  little  of  our  own  critical  writing.  It  is  not 
clear,  however,  why  this  peremptory  tone  should  be  affected  in 
cases  where  the  critics  manifestly  disagree  among  themselves. 
We  may  take  one  example  from  so  useful  a  book  as  Kyle's  Canon 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  author  begins  with  the  general  state- 
ment :  "  Analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  has  shown  conclusively  that  I 
numerous  collections  of  Israelite  laws  were  made  at  different 
times,"  etc.  (p.  22).  After  mention  of  the  Decalogue  and  Book  of 
the  Covenant :  "  Another  ancient,  and  very  distinct  collection  of 
laws  is  incorporated  in  the  section  which  has  been  called  by 
scholars  '  The  Law  of  Holiness '  (Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.).  ...  It  is  a 
fact,  which  no  scholars  have  ventured  to  dispute,  that  these 
chapters  contain  extensive  excerpts  from  a  collection  of  laws 
whose  general  character  must  have  closely  resembled  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant,  differing  only  from  it  in  subject-matter  so  far 
as  it  is  occupied  more  generally  with  ceremonial  than  with  civil 
regulations"  (pp.  25-6).  "  Kzckiel  shows  unmistakable  signs  of 
acquaintance  with  a  collection  of  Priestly  Laws  that  we  can 
certainly  identify  "  (p.  72).  We  agree  (see  pp.  308  ff.) ;  but  leading 
critical  scholars  do  energetically  dispute  both  these  propositions. 

Ml 


508  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  VII 

The  "Law  of  Holiness"  is  not  by  them  generally  put  before 
Ezekiel.  Dr.  G.  B.  Gray,  e.g.,  says,  on  his  side,  as  confidently  : 
"  Lev.  xix.  2  belongs  to  a  code  (known  as  the  '  Law  of  Holiness  ') 
drawn  up  in  the  early  part  of  the  sixth  century  B.C."  (Divine 
Discipline  of  Israel,  p.  41).  Further:  "Modern  Criticism  has 
probably  shown  incontrovertibly  [if  incontrovertibly,  why  prob- 
ably?] that  the  period  of  the  final  literary  codification  of  the 
.Priestly  Laws  can  hardly  be  placed  before  the  era  of  the  exile. 
It  teaches,  however,  no  less  emphatically  that  the  Priestly  Laws 
themselves  have  been  gradually  developed  from  previously  existing 
collections  of  regulations  affecting  ritual  and  worship "  (p.  27 ; 
italics  in  last  case  author's).  If  this  be  so,  then  Kuenen 
and  Wellhausen  must  be  excluded  from  "modern  criticism," 
for  both  "emphatically"  deny  that  any  written  collections  of 
Priestly  Laws  existed  before  the  exile,  and  affirm  the  contrary. 
E.g.,  "  as  we  have  seen,  no  ritual  legislation  yet  existed  in 
Ezekiel's  time,"  etc.  (Kuenen,  Rel.  of  Israel,  ii.  p.  231 ;  cf. 
Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  480).  Besides,  as  shown  in 
Chap.  IX.,  if  this  is  allowed,  the  "incontrovertibly"  disappears, 
for  the  one  grand  reason  for  putting  the  laws  in  the  exile  is 
that  they  were  new. 


NOTE  B.— P.  206 
CORNILL'S  DECOMPOSITION  OP  J 

THE  following  indicates  the  process  by  which  Cornill  reached  the 
conclusion  that  the  unity  of  the  J  document  must  be  given  up : — 
"The  first  incentives  proceeded  from  the  Biblical  primitive 
history ;  in  this  both  Schrader  and  Wellhausen  marked  con- 
tradictions which  made  it  impossible  to  maintain  the  literary 
unity.  Gen.  iv.  16b  stands  in  sharp  contrast  with  the  im- 
mediately preceding  vers.  11-16%  since  in  these  the  ceasing 
of  that  which  in  chap.  iii.  17  is  a  curse  for  all  mankind,  is 
threatened  as  a  punishment  to  Cain  ;  the  unquestionably  parallel 
passages,  chaps,  iv.  7  and  iii.  16,  iv.  15  and  iv.  24,  do  not  give 
the  impression  of  a  free  reproduction  by  the  same  writer,  but 
rather  of  imitation ;  the  same  author  cannot  have  written  chap, 
iv.  26  who  already  in  chap.  iv.  1  permitted  himself  to  use  with- 
out hesitation  the  name  Jahve ;  chap.  xi.  1-9  is  irreconcilable 
with  chap.  ix.  19,  where  that  appears  as  a  self-evident  natural 
process  which  in  the  other  passage  is  apprehended  as  the  result 
f>f  a  special  punitive  interposition  of  Jahve ;  the  Noah  of  chap, 
ix.  20-27,  the  father  of  the  three  sons,  Shem,  Japheth,  and 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  VII  509 

Canaan,  i.e.,  the  racial  ancestor  of  three  specific  peoples,  is  not 
tho  Nn.ih  of  chap.  ix.  18-19,  who,  through  the  three  sons,  Shem, 
Hnm,  and  Japheth,  is  the  ancestor  of  the  whole  of  mankind 
nfter  the  flood.  And  this  brings  us  to  the  weightiest  and  most 
deep-going  distinction  in  the  primitive  history ;  we  have  in  it 
still  clear  traces  of  a  tradition  which  knows  nothing  of  the  flood, 
which  derives  the  three  groups  of  the  whole  of  humanity  from 
the  sons  of  Lamech,  chap.  iv.  20-22,  which  traces  back  all 
"  Nephilim,"  still  existing  in  historical  times,  Num.  xiii.  33,  to 
the  marriages  of  the  sons  of  God  with  the  daughters  of  men. 
Since  all  the  passages  cited  are  undoubtedly  Jahvistic,  while  no 
trace  is  found  of  £,  which  appears,  rather,  to  have  had  no 
primitive  history,  there  remains  no  alternative  hut  to  surrender 
the  homogeneity  of  J  "  (Einleitung,  p.  52). 


NOTE  C.— P.  206 

TH*  VIEW   OP  J   AND  E   AS   "SCHOOLS* 

append  a  few  utterances  of  recent  writers  on  this  subject : — 

Budde  says:  "J  and  K  are  throughout  not  to  me  persons, 
but  extensive  schools  of  writers,  running  their  course  alongside 
of  each  other  "  (Judges,  p.  xiv). 

Gunkel  says:  "J  and  E  are  not  individual  writers,  nor  yet 
redactors  of  old  single  documents,  but  rather  schools  of  narrators  " 
(Genesis,  p.  Iviii). 

Dr.  Cheyne  says :  "  The  Yahwists  were,  in  fact,  perhaps  a 
school  of  writers  "  (Founder*  of  Criticism,  p.  30). 

Dr.  Driver  says  that  P  "  seems,  as  a  whole,  to  have  been  the 
work  of  a  school  of  writers  rather  than  of  an  individual "  (Genesis, 
p.  xvi),  and  no  doubt  would  apply  the  same  to  J  and  E. 

Kautzsch  says:  "A  close  examination  of  its  (J's)  contents 
showed  long  ago  that  here  also  we  have  to  do  with  various  strata, 
and  therefore  with  the  work  of  a  Jahwistic  school "  (Lit.  of  O.  T., 
p.  37 ;  similarly  of  E,  p.  45). 

McFadyen  says:  "More  properly  they  (J  and  E)  were  the 
work  of  a  school,  and  represent  a  literary  and  religious  activity 
that  ranges  over  a  considerable  period.  .  .  .  The  priestly 
document  ...  is,  like  the  prophetic  documents,  not  the  work  of 
a  tingle  author,  but  of  a  school,  and  represents  a  movement" 
(Manges  of  the  Proph.  and  I*ritstly  Historians,  pp.  22,  224). 

The  Oxford  Hexateuch,  i.  p.  x,  tabular  Contents,  says:  "J 
represents  a  school  rather  than  a  single  author." 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER    VIII 


NOTE  A.— P.  252 

THE  BREAKING  UP  OP  DEUTERONOMY 

AN  example  is  furnished  in  a  recent  work,  The  Book  of  the 
Covenant  in  Modb :  A  Critical  Inquiry  into  the  Original  Form  of 
Deuteronomy,  by  John  Cullen,  M.A.,  D.Sc.  (1903),  which, 
however,  the  author  admits  "  differs  radically  from  that  which 
has  come  to  be  regarded  almost  as  a  tradition  of  criticism."  We 
cannot  see,  however,  that  his  theory  differs  much  in  principle 
from  some  of  the  other  modern  attempts.  He  splits  up  the  book 
into  a  greater  number  of  parts  than  the  more  cautious  critics  have 
done,  and  seeks  to  assign  to  each  its  place  in  the  total  composi- 
tion. The  original  appearance  of  the  book  he  holds,  with  the 
critics,  to  have  been  in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  He  makes  the  book 
begin  with  chap.  xxix.  1-4.  He  leaves  out  chaps,  i.-iv.  9,  and 
transfers  chap.  v.  2  to  a  position  introductory  to  chap.  iv.  10  ff. 
This  original  Deuteronomy  extended  (with  omissions)  to  chap. 
xL  28,  but  had  as  its  conclusion  chap,  xxviii.  1-45  (omitting 
vers.  2-9);  chap.  xxx.  11-20:  Ex.  xxiv.  4-8  (!),  and  Deut. 
xxxii.  45,  46.  The  Decalogue  in  chap.  v.  is  excised  as  unsuitable 
to  the  context,  and  is  relegated  to  a  "  Decalogue  Edition," 
which  appeared  some  time  before  the  exile.  The  Decalogue  in 
Ex.  xx.  is  still  later.  Successive  developments  follow  through 
the  addition  of  "Law  Code,"  a  "First  Combined  Edition," 
a  "  Second  or  Decalogue  Edition,"  a  "  Third  or  Minatory 
Edition,"  an  "Exilic  Redaction,"  "Post-Exilic  Additions,"  and 
a  "  P  Redaction."  If  the  able  author  is  seriously  persuaded  that 
any  book  under  heaven  was  ever  made  by  such  a  process,  we  feel, 
with  all  respect,  that  there  is  hardly  any  common  ground  for 
argument. 

Oettli  is  a  comparatively  conservative   writer,  who   defends 
the  unity  of  the  main  body  of  Deuteronomy,  but  even  he  is  badly 

510 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  VIII  5" 

bitten  when  he  comes  to  the  closing  chapters.     The  following  is 
his  analysis  of  chaps,  xxvii.-xxxiv.  (Dent.  p.  12) : — 

xxvii.  1-3,  Dt. ;  4,  B;  5-7%  JE;  7k,  8,  R;  9-13,  Dt ;  14- 
26,  R;  xxviii.  1-68,  Dt  (with  reserve  as  to  enlargements); 
xxviii.  69-xxx.  20,  Dt.  (with  redactional  changes  and  t 
positions) ;  xxxL  1-13,  Dt ;  14,  15,  JE;  16-22,  introduction  to 
Mopes' Song  out  of  JE;  23,  JE;  24-29,  Dt. ;  30,  R;  xxxii.  1- 
44,  from  JE;  45-47,  Dt.  ;  48-52,  P;  xxxiii.  from  JE;  xxxiv. 
1  P,  Dt  JE;  2-4,  JE;  5?,  6,  Dt ;  7,  P,  JE;  8,  9,  P;  10-12 
Dt 

There  are  elements  of  truth  in  this  analysis,  but  it  is  assuredly 
greatly  overdone. 


NOTE  B.— P.  253 

DBUTKKONOMIC   AND    PRIESTLY    STYLES 

IN  a  note  to  the  first  edition  of  his  O.T.  in  J.  C.  (p.  433), 
Professor  W.  R.  Smith  cites  as  "a  good  example  of  the  funda- 
mental difference  in  legal  style  between  the  Levitical  law  and 
the  Deuteronomic  Code,"  the  laws  about  the  cities  of  refuge 
in  Num.  xxxv.  and  Deut  xix.  The  case  is  worth  considering  as 
"  a  good  example  "  also  of  the  tendency  to  overdrive  argument. 
Allowance  in  any  case  must  be  made  for  the  difference  between 
a  careful  original  statement  of  a  law,  and  a  later  general  rehearsal 
of  its  substance  in  the  rounded  style  of  free,  popular  discuur.--. 
But  what  are  the  specific  differences  t  "In  Deuteronomy  the 
word  '  refuge '  does  not  occur,  and  the  cities  are  always  described 
by  a  periphrasis."  But  the  Deuteronomist  simply  says :  "  Thou 
shalt  separate  three  cities  for  thee  in  the  midst  of  thy  land  (chap, 
xix.  2);  "  thou  shalt  separate  three  cities  for  thee  "  (ver.  7) ; 
"then  shalt  thou  add  three  cities  more  for  thee"  (ver.  9)  ;  and 
there  is  no  periphrasis.  The  phrase  "that  every  manslayer  nmv 
flee  thither"  (ver.  3),  "the  manslayer  which  shall  flee  thitli.-i  " 
(ver.  4),  is  derived  verbally  from  Num.  xxxv.  11,  15.  "In 
Numbers  the  phrase  for  '  accidentally '  is  6i«/t '//«//<»,  in  iVnt.  l>i/.'/i 
'//«•<«/."  Admitted,  but  the  words  convey  the  same  idr.i.  .m-i 
are  only  used  twice  altogether — in  Num.  xxxv.  11,  15  and  in 
Deut  iv.  42,  xix.  4.  "  The  judges  in  the  one  are  '  tin-  .-..!,•.•: 
tiun,'  in  the  other  'the  elders  of  his  city."'  But  I>euteronomy 
says  nothing  about  "judge*,"  and  "the  elders,"  who  are  on< - 
referred  to  in  chap.  xix.  12,  plainly  act  in  the  name  of  tin 
congregation.  "The  verb  for  hate  is  different"  Rather,  "the 


512  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  VIII 

verb  for  hate  "  does  not  occur  at  all  in  Num.  xxxv.,  but  the  noun 
derived  from  it  does  (ver.  20),  and  is  translated  "  hatred,"  while 
in  vers.  21,  22,  a  different  term,  translated  "enmity,"  is  employed, 
which  expresses  nearly  the  same  sense.  Had  these  words 
appeared,  one  in  Numbers,  the  other  in  Deuteronomy,  instead  of 
standing  in  consecutive  verses  of  one  chapter,  they  would  doubt- 
less have  been  quoted  as  further  evidence  of  diversity.  So  "  one 
account  says  again  and  again  '  to  kill  any  person,'  the  other  '  to 
kill  his  neighbour ' " — a  difference  surely  not  incompatible  with 
identity  even  of  authorship.  "  Neighbour  "  is  found  repeatedly, 
alternating  with  another  word,  in  Lev.  xix.  (vers.  13,  16,  18;  xx. 
10 — P),  and  "  to  kill  a  person  "  occurs  in  Deut.  xxvii.  25.  (Cf.  the 
Heb.  idiom  in  the  law  itself,  Deut.  xix.  6,  11.)  "The  detailed 
description  of  the  difference  between  murder  and  accidental 
homicide  is  entirely  different  in  language  and  detail."  But  in 
Deuteronomy  there  is  no  "  detailed  description  "  of  1?he  kind  referred 
to.  There  is  in  Num.  xxxv.  16-24  ;  but  Deuteronomy  confines 
itself  to  one  simple  illustration  from  concrete  life,  admirably 
adapted,  it  will  be  admitted,  to  the  speaker's  popular  purpose 
(chap.  xix.  5).  The  statement  in  Deuteronomy,  it  is  evident, 
presupposes  the  earlier  law,  and  is  incomplete  without  it,  occupy- 
ing only  about  a  dozen  verses,  as  compared  with  over  twenty 
in  Numbers,  while  even  of  the  dozen,  three  are  occupied 
with  a  new  provision  for  the  number  of  the  cities  being  ulti- 
mately raised  to  nine  (vers.  8-10).  When,  further,  Dr.  Smith 
points  out  that  "Num.  xxxv.  11-34  contains  19  nouns  and 
verbs  which  occur  also  in  Deut.  xix.  2-13,  and  45  which  do 
not  occur  in  the  parallel  passage;  while  the  law,  as  given  in 
Deuteronomy,  has  50  such  words  not  in  the  law  of  Numbers," 
he  applies  a  numerical  test  which,  considering  the  different 
character  of  the  two  passages,  is  quite  misleading.  We  have 
before  us  the  text  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  Home  Rule  Bill,  and  his 
speeches  made  in  introducing  it  to  the  House  of  Commons  ;  but 
what  havoc  a  similar  enumeration  would  make  of  his  title  to  the 
authorship  of  the  Bill !  It  is  not  contended  that  Moses  with 
his  own  pen  necessarily  wrote  out  all  these  laws,  any  more  than 
that  Mr.  Gladstone  drafted  his  own  Bill. 

We  have  not,  in  these  remarks,  taken  any  notice  of  Josh.  xx. 
3-6,  where  the  language  of  Num.  xxxv.  and  of  Deut.  xix.  is 
blended.  The  Deuteronomic  expressions  are  lacking  in  the 
LXX  (Vat.),  and  it  is  possible  they  may  be  a  later  gloss. 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  VIII  513 


NOTE  C.— P.  258 

DKUTBRONOMY   AS   FRAUS  PI  A 

ON*  of  Reuss's  propositions,  endorsed  by  Wellhausen,  is :  "  Deu- 
teronomy is  the  book  which  the  priests  pretended  to  have  found 
in  the  temple  in  the  time  of  Josiah"  (Wellhausen,  Hist,  of 
Israel,  p.  4). 

Kuenen  says :  "  It  is  certain  that  an  author  of  the  seventh  cen- 
tury B.C. — following  in  the  footsteps  of  others,  e.g.t  of  the  writer 
*>f  the  Book  of  the  Covenant — has  made  Moses  himself  proclaim 
that  which,  in  his  opinion,  it  was  expedient  to  the  real  interests 
of  the  Mosaic  party  to  announce  and  introduce.  .  .  .  Men  used 
to  perpetrate  such  fictions  as  these  without  any  qualms  of 
conscience.  ...  If  Hilkiah  found  the  book  in  the  temple,  it 
was  put  there  by  the  adherents  of  the  Mosaic  tendency.  Or  else 
Hilkiah  himself  was  of  their  number,  and  in  that  case  he  pre- 
tended that  he  had  found  the  book  of  the  law.  ...  It  is  true, 
this  deception  is  more  unjustifiable  still  than  the  introduction  of 
MOMS  as  speaking.  But  we  must  reflect  here  also  that  the  ideas 
of  those  times  were  not  the  same  as  ours,  but  considerably  less 
strict"  (Rel.  of  Israel,  iL  pp.  18-19).  We  fancy  that  the  ideas 
of  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  and  of  Jeremiah  will  compare 
favourably  in  "  strictness "  with  those  of  the  writer  of  the 
above  section. 

Cornill  says :  "  We  must  recognise  the  fact  that  we  have  here 
a  pseudograph,  and  that  this  was  known  to  the  persons  interested. 
.  .  .  The  excuse  for  them  must  be  that  they  saw  no  other 
means  of  carrying  through  their  work,  planned  in  the  spirit  of 
Moses  and  for  the  honour  of  Jahve"  (Einleitung,  pp.  37-8). 

Colenso,  as  seen  above  (p.  258),  thinks  Jeremiah  may  have 
been  the  fabariut.  "  It  is  obvious,"  he  says,  "  that  very  few 
beside  the  writer  may  have  been  privy  to  the  scheme, — perhaps 
only  the  priest  Hilkiah,  and  possibly  Huldah,  and  one  or  two 
others"  (Pent.  Pop.  edit.  p.  198). 

Dr.  Cheyne,  after  toying  with,  and  half-adopting  this  hypo- 
thesis in  his  Jeremiah,  in  "  Men  of  the  Bible  "  series  (pp.  76  ff. : 
"  What  he — Hilkiah — practised,  however,  was  not  deceit,  not 
delusion,  but  rather  t'/lusion "  p.  77),  goes  wholly  over  it  in  his 
Founders  of  Critieitm  (pp.  267  ff.).  "How  is  it  that  Hilkiah, 
Shaphan,  and  Huldah  display  such  imperturbability  t  The  easiest 
supposition  is  that  these  three  Arsons  (to  whom  we  must  add 
Ahikam,  Achbor,  and  Asaiah)  had  agreed  together,  unknown 
to  the  king,  on  their  course  of  action"  (p.  267).  "I  quite  enter 

33 


514  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  VIII 

into  the  dislike  of  reverent  Bible-readers  for  the  theory  of  '  pious 
fraud.'  I  think  that  dislike  an  exaggerated  one.  No  student  of 
Oriental  life  and  history  could  be  surprised  at  a  pious  fraud 
originating  among  priests.  But  I  do  not  adopt  that  theory  to 
account  for  2  Kings  xxii."  [this  is  simple  casuistry]  (p.  271). 
Hilkiah's  conduct  in  imposing  the  book  on  Josiah  is  justified. 
"  Such  conduct  as  that  of  Hilkiah  is,  I  maintain,  worthy  of  an 
inspired  teacher  and  statesman  in  that  age  and  under  those 
circumstances.  It  is  also  not  without  a  distant  resemblance  to 
the  course  of  Divine  Providence,  so  far  as  this  can  be  scanned 
by  our  weak  faculties.  Indeed,  if  we  reject  the  theory  of 
1  needful  illusion '  we  are  thrown  upon  a  sea  of  perplexity.  Was 
there  no  book  [Dr.  Cheyne's  own]  on  Jeremiah  bringing  home 
the  need  of  this  theory  to  the  Christian  conscience,  to  which 
Dr.  Driver  could  have  referred?"  (p.  272).  Our  ideas  in  these 
days  are  "  more  strict " ! 


NOTE  D.— P.  260 

OBLIVION  OP  CHARLEMAGNE'S  CODE 

DR.  CHBYNE  refers  in  his  Jeremiah  (p.  76),  in  illustration  of 
2  Kings  xxii.,  to  an  instance  of  successful  forgery  in  the  history 
of  England  given  in  Maine's  Ancient  Law  (p.  82).  Dr.  Green,  on 
the  other  hand,  cites  from  Sir  James  Stephen  an  apposite  case 
of  the  loss  of  knowledge  of  a  whole  Code — that  of  Charlemagne. 
"  When  the  barbarism  of  the  domestic  government,"  says  this 
authority,  "  had  thus  succeeded  the  barbarism  of  the  government 
of  the  State,  one  of  the  most  remarkable  results  of  that  political 
change  was  the  disappearance  of  the  laws  and  institutions  by 
which  Charlemagne  had  endeavoured  to  elevate  and  civilise  his 
subjects.  Before  the  close  of  the  century  in  which  he  died  the 
whole  body  of  his  laws  had  fallen  into  utter  disuse  throughout 
the  whole  extent  of  his  Gallic  dominions.  They  who  have 
studied  the  charters,  laws,  and  chronicles  of  the  later  Carlovingian 
princes  most  diligently  are  unanimous  in  declaring  that  they 
indicate  either  an  absolute  ignorance,  or  an  entire  forgetfulness 
of  the  legislation  of  Charlemagne "  (Lects.  on  Hist,  of  France, 
p.  94;  Green,  Higher  Criticism,  p.  156). 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  VIII  515 

NOTE  R— P.  269 

THE   LAW  OF  THB  KINO   IN   DKUT.    XVT1.    14  IT. 

DR.  DBIVKR  and  many  critics  allow  the  law  of  the  king  in  this 
chapter  to  be  at  least  in  kernel  old.  Delitzsch  says:  "The 
prohibition  to  make  a  foreigner  king  is  comprehensible  in  the 
mouth  of  Moses,  bat  without  motive  or  object  in  so  late  an  age 
as  Jo.-iuh's,  and  generally  during  the  period  of  the  undivided  and 
divided  kingdoms"  (Genesis,  p.  38).  He  discusses  the  subject 
more  fully  in  Luthardt's  Zeitschrift,  1880,  pp.  564-5.  We  can 
find,  he  says,  "  a  suitable  Mosaic  basis  for  this  law.  It  is  on  the 
face  of  it  improbable  that  a  leader  and  lawgiver  coming  out  of  a 
monarchical  country  should  not  have  foreseen  that  the  people 
would  wish  to  have  a  king.  .  .  .  The  thought  in  ver.  16  that 
the  passion  for  horses  would  lead  to  a  return  of  the  people  to  Egypt 
has  hitherto  found  no  satisfactory  explanation  from  the  circum 
stances  of  the  time  of  the  kings — this  warning  and  threatening 
bear  still  undeniably  the  character  of  a  time  in  which  the  renewal 
of  the  newly  lost  relation  to  the  kingdom  of  the  Pharaohs  was  a 
pressing  alarm."  The  law,  it  is  thought,  is  sketched  in  terms 
borrowed  from  the  court  of  Solomon.  It  is  rather  to  be  inferred 
that  the  description  of  Solomon's  court  in  the  Book  of  Kings 
(1  Kings  x.  26-29 ;  xi.  1-4)  is  given  in  terms  partly  borrowed 
from  this  law.  The  familiarity  of  the  author  of  Kings  with 
Deuteronomy  is  undoubted,  and  he  draws  up  his  account  of 
Solomon's  luxury  and  splendour,  particularly  of  his  multiplication 
of  wives,  in  such  terms  as  will  impress  the  mind  by  its  contrast 
with  this  law. 


NOTE  F.— P.  276 

MINOR    DISCREPANCIES    IX    LAWS 

MINOR  examples  of  discrepancies  are  those  in  the  laws  relating 
to  firstlings  (Deut.  xv.  19,  20;  cf.  Num.  xviii.  17,  18),  priestly 
dues  (chap,  xviii.  3,  4),  the  law  of  bondservants  (chap.  xv.  1 2  ff. ; 
cf.  Ex.  xxi  1-6),  the  law  of  carrion  (chap.  xiv.  21  ;  cf.  Lev. 
xviL  15),  etc.  Reasonable  explanations  have  been  offered  of 
most  of  these  difficulties,  though  a  few  points  may  remain  unclear. 
In  the  case  of  the  firstlings,  Deuteronomy  assumes  the  feast  on 
the  flesh  at  the  sanctuary,  without  denying  that  the  usual 
portions  went  to  the  priest ;  Numbers  lays  stress  on  the  latter, 


516  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  VIII 

and  perhaps  means  no  more  than  that  the  sacrifices  came  under 
the  law  of  the  peace  offerings  (cf.  Van  Hoonacker,  Le  Sacerdoce, 
pp.  405-6).  Even  if  the  priests  received  the  whole  in  the  first 
instance,  it  may  be  presumed  that,  as  in  peace  offerings  generally, 
the  offerer  had  a  share  given  back  to  him.  In  chap,  xviii.  3,  4,  the 
dues  specified  are  probably  additional  to  those  in  Numbers.  "  A 
pitiful  livelihood  truly,"  as  Hengstenberg  says  (Pent.  ii.  p.  335), 
if  this  were  all !  But  the  regular  income  is  presupposed.  (See 
pp.  188,  275.)  The  mention  of  the  Bebrewess  in  the  law  of  bond- 
service (chap.  xv.  12)  is  not  a  contradiction  of  the  older  law  ;  while 
the  case  of  the  bondmaid  betrothed  to  her  master  or  master's  son 
in  Ex.  xxi.  7  ff.  is  special,  and  is  not  touched  on  in  Deuteronomy. 
The  modification  in  the  law  of  carrion  (chap.  xiv.  21)  has  probably 
in  view  the  conditions  of  settled  life  in  Canaan  (cf.  Bissell,  Pent. 
p.  176),  but  still  is  not  to  bo  understood  as  dispensing  with  the 
purifications  of  Lev.  xvii.  15,  even  for  the  stranger.  Generally, 
it  may  occur  that  it  is  hardly  conceivable  that  the  author  of 
Deuteronomy  should  alter  or  contradict  old  laws  for  no  apparent 
reason. 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  IX 


NOTE  A.— P.  287 
KUENEN'S  EARLY  VIEWS  OF  THE  POST-EXILIAN  THEORY 

IN  1861  (five  years  before  the  publication  of  Grafs  work), 
Kuenen  thus  expressed  himself  on  the  views  of  Von  Bohlen, 
George,  and  Vatke,  who  held,  like  Graf,  that  the  legislation  of 
Deuteronomy  was  earlier  than  that  of  the  middle  books  of  the 
Pentateuch : — 

"He  (George)  assumes  that  the  historical  elements  of  the 
Pentateuch  are  the  oldest,  that  Deuteronomy  was  written  dur- 
ing the  reign  of  Josiah,  whilst  the  greater  part  of  the  laws  in 
Exodus-Numbers  did  not  exist  until  after  the  exile.  His  argu- 
ments are  partly  external,  partly  internal,  i.e.,  derived  from  a 
comparison  of  the  two  legislations.  (1)  Jeremiah,  who  knows 
Deuteronomy  and  makes  frequent  use  of  it,  shows  no  acquaint- 
ance with  the  laws  in  Exodus-Numbers,  as  appears  from  chap. 
vii.  21-23,  where  he  appeals  to  Deut.  viL  6,  xiv.  2,  xxvi.  18,  but 
ignores  the  whole  sacrificial  Thora.  But  Jeremiah  could,  as 
llo&ea,  Isaiah,  and  other  prophets  before  him,  exalt  the  moral 
commands  of  the  law  far  above  its  ceremonial  prescriptions,  and 
consider  the  former  as  the  real  basis  of  the  covenant  with 
Jahveh,  without  the  implication  that  a  ceremonial  code  did  not 
yet  exist  in  his  time ;  he  could  even  pronounce  his  conviction 
tlmt  the  laws  concerning  burnt  offering  and  sacrifice  are  later 
thun  the  moral  commands,  and  still  it  would  not  follow  from  this 
that  Exodus-Numbers  were  committed  to  writing  later  than 
Deuteronomy.  (2)  Internal  evidence.  The  priority  of  Deutero- 
nomy is  argued  on  the  ground  of  several  strange  assertions, 
ickifh  are  not  worthy  of  refutation-,  to  wit,  that,  before  the 
llabylonish  captivity,  there  was  no  distinction  between  priests 
and  Levit**,  high  priest  and  priests ;  that  the  Mosaic  tabernacle 
never  existed ;  that  the  spirit  and  tendency  of  Deuteronomy 


518  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  IX 

indicate  an  earlier  period  than  those  of  Leviticus.  Deut.  xxxi. 
14  is  considered  wholly  arbitrary  as  a  later  addition;  xviii.  2, 
xxiv.  8,  are  left  out  of  view.  The  view  of  George  in  this  form  as 
presented  by  him  has  been  almost  universally  rejected"  (quoted 
by  G.  Vos  in  Pentateuchal  Codes,  pp.  173-4).  "Vos  draws  from 
the  quotation  some  very  pertinent  morals. 


NOTE  B.— P.  294 

THE   UNITY   OP   THB   LAW 

THE  unique  character,  and  essential  unity  of  idea  and  spirit  of 
the  Mosaic  law,  are  abundantly  testified  to  by  critical  writers. 
The  following  are  examples  : — 

Ewald  writes  thus  of  the  sacred  seasons :  "  You  behold  a 
structure  simple,  lofty,  perfect.  All  proceeds  as  it  were  from  one 
spirit,  and  represents  one  idea,  and  is  carried  into  effect  by  what 
resembles  counters  exactly  matched  strung  upon  one  cord.  .  .  . 
Whoever  has  a  thorough  knowledge  of  these  festivals,  will  be 
persuaded  that  they  have  not  arisen  by  slow  degrees  from  the 
blind  impulse  of  external  nature,  nor  from  the  history  of  the 
people,  but  are  the  product  of  a  lofty  genius  "  (quoted  at  length 
by  Green,  Feasts,  pp.  50-1,  from  Zeitschrift  fur  die  Kunde  des 
Morgerilandes,  iii.  pp.  411,  434). 

Riehm  says :  "  Most  of  the  laws  of  the  middle  books  of  the 
Pentateuch  form  essentially  a  homogeneous  whole.  They  do  not 
indeed  all  come  from  one  hand,  and  have  not  been  written  at  one 
and  the  same  time.  .  .  .  However,  they  are  all  ruled  by  the 
same  principles  and  ideas,  have  the  same  setting,  the  like  form 
of  representation,  and  the  same  mode  of  expression.  A  multitude 
of  definite  terms  appear  again  and  again.  In  manifold  ways  also 
the  laws  refer  to  one  another.  Apart  from  isolated  subordinate 
differences,  they  agree  with  one  another,  and  so  supplement  each 
other  as  to  give  the  impression  of  a  single  whole,  worked  out 
with  marvellous  consistency  in  its  details  "  (Einleilung,  i.  p.  202). 

Schultz,  who  holds  that  "certainly  it  was  only  a  later  age 
that  created  in  detail  the  several  institutions,"  yet  says :  "  Every- 
thing is  of  a  piece,  from  the  most  trifling  commandment  re- 
garding outward  cleanliness,  up  to  the  fundamental  thoughts  of 
the  moral  law.  Civic  virtue  is  indissolubly  linked  to  piety.  .  .  . 
The  whole  is  woven  into  a  splendid  unity,  into  the  thought  that 
this  people  should  represent  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth,  and 


NOTES  TO  CHA1TER  IX  519 

realise  in  its  national  life  the  main  features  of  the  divine  order 
of  things"  (0.71  Theology,  i.  p.  138). 

Kautzsch,  after  referring  to  the  various  strata  which  he 
thinks  can  be  distinguished  in  the  Priestly  Law,  says  :  "  But  as 
regards  the  spirit  which  pervades  them,  and  the  fundamental 
assumptions  from  which  they  start,  all  the  parts  boar  so  homo- 
geneous a  stamp  that  we  have  contented  ourselves  in  the  '  Survey  ' 
with  the  common  designation  P,  i.e.,  Priests'  Writing  "  (  Lit.  of 
O.T.t  p.  107). 


NOTE  C.—  P.  307 

EZEKIEL   AND   EARLIER   LAWS 

CF.  KYLE'S  observations  in  earlier  Note,  pp.  507-8  (Canon  of  O.T., 
pp.  72  ff.).  The  following  sentences  from  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson's 
Introduction  to  his  Ezekiel  ("Cambridge  Bible")  may  be 
compared  with  the  text  :  — 

"  Inferences  from  comparison  of  Ezekiel  with  the  Law  have 
to  be  drawn  with  caution,  for  it  is  evident  that  the  prophet 
handles  with  freedom  institutions  certainly  older  than  his  own 
time.  The  feast  of  weeks  (Ex.  xxiii.  16  ;  xxxiv.  22)  forms  no 
element  in  his  calendar  ;  the  law  of  the  offering  of  the  firstlings 
of  the  flock  is  dispensed  with  by  him  ;  there  is  no  gilding  in  his 
temple,  and  no  wine  in  his  sacrificial  oblations.  His  reconstruc- 
tion of  the  courts  of  the  temple  is  altogether  new  ;  and  so  is  his 
provision  in  the  'oblation'  of  land  for  the  maintenance  of  priests, 
Levites,  and  prince.  .  .  It  is  evident  that  the  ritual  in  his  book 
had  long  been  a  matter  of  consuetudinary  law.  He  is  familiar 
not  only  with  burnt,  peace,  and  meat  offerings,  but  with  sin  and 
trespass  offerings  (xlv.  17).  All  these  are  spoken  of  as  things 
customary  and  well  understood  (xiii.  13,  xliv.  29-31);  even  the 
jirajcis  of  the  trespass  offerings  is  so  much  a  thing  familiar  that 
no  rules  are  laid  down  in  regard  to  it  (xlvi.  20).  The  sin  and 
trespass  offerings  are  little  if  at  all  alluded  to  in  the  ancient 
extra-ritual  literature,  but  the  argument  from  silence  is  a  pre- 
carious one,  for  Ezekiel  himself,  when  not  precise,  uses  the 
comprehensive  phraseology  'burnt-offerings  and  peace  offerings  ' 
(xliii.  27).  The  people's  dues  to  the  priests  are  also  so  much 
customary  that  no  rules  are  needful  to  regulate  them  (xliv.  30). 
Ezekiel  is  no  more  a  '  legislator  '  than  he  is  the  founder  of  the 
temple  "  (pp.  Hii-liv). 


520  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  IX 

NOTE  D.— P.  313 

QUOTATIONS  IN  DEUTERONOMY  FROM  JE  AND  P 

DR.  DRIVER  makes  a  strong  point  of  the  difference  in  the  mode 
of  the  references  in  Deuteronomy  to  JE  and  to  P  respectively 
(Introd.  pp.  76,  137),  but  his  statements  need  qualification. 
Dillmann,  with  others,  points  out  that  it  does  not  belong  to  the 
task  of  Deuteronomy  to  dwell  on  the  priestly  laws  as  it  does  on 
those  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  and  shows  that  by  no  means 
all  the  laws  in  the  latter  (hardly  anything  of  Ex.  xxL-xxii.  14) 
are  taken  up  into  Deuteronomy,  and  what  is  repeated  is  for  the 
most  part  not  verbally  repeated,  but  is  modified  and  expanded 
(Num.-Jos.  p.  603). 

NOTE  K— P.  317 

LEVITES   IN   EZEKIEL 

IT  is  to  be  conceded  that,  while  Ezekiel  uses  "Levites"  as 
apparently  a  well-known  term  for  the  ministers  of  the  second 
order  (chap.  xlviiL  13),  the  only  "Levites"  that  come  specifically 
into  his  picture  are  the  degraded  priests  (chap.  xl.  45).  This 
agrees  with  the  scope  of  his  representation,  and  is  most  naturally 
explained  by  supposing  that  the  Levites  had  been  practically 
ousted  from  the  temple  by  the  uncircumcised  strangers,  and  the 
degraded  priests  are  viewed  as  taking  their  place.  It  is  likely 
also  that,  in  the  general  declension,  the  Levites  themselves  had 
very  largely  broken  the  bounds  of  their  order,  and  had  arrogated 
to  themselves  priestly  functions  at  the  high  places  and  elsewhere. 
They  had  become  by  usage  and  common  designation  priests  also 
(cf.  Dillmann,  Exod.-Lev.  p.  461 ;  Van  Hoonacker,  Le  Sacerdoce, 
pp.  194-5). 


NOTE  F.— P.  320 

ALLEGED   CONTRADICTIONS   IN   THE   PASSOVER   LAWS 

THE  assertion  of  Nowack,  W.  R.  Smith,  Driver,  and  others,  that 
in  Deuteronomy  (xvi.  2)  the  choice  in  the  passover  is  not  limited 
to  a  lamb,  as  in  P,  but  might  be  a  bullock  or  a  sheep  (cf.  Driver, 
Deut.  p.  191),  confuses  the  passover  sacrifice  in  the  strict  sense 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  IX  521 

with  the  feast  that  follows.  This  is  not  a  device  of  "  harmonists," 
but  a  plain  dictate  of  common  sense  in  comparing  the  laws. 
Kuenen  sees  no  contradiction  with  the  lamb  in  Deuteronomy 
(Rel.  of  Israel,  ii.  p.  93).  Even  in  Lev.  xxiii.  4  ff.,  and  Num. 
xxviii.  16  ff.  (P),  no  mention  is  made  of  the  lamb.  Does  P, 
therefore,  not  know  of  it  t  The  freewill  offerings  are  recognised 
in  Lev.  xxiii.  4-8,  Num.  xxix.  39;  cf.  2  Chron.  xxxv.  7-9. 
The  "  passover "  in  the  stricter  sense  is  alluded  to  in  Deut.  xvi. 
5-7,  as  in  Ex.  xxiii.  18,  xxxiv.  25.  Neither  can  a  discrepancy 
be  made  out  of  the  word  used  in  Deut  xvi.  7  for  the  cooking  of 
the  lamb,  as  though  it  necessarily  meant  to  "  seethe  "  or  "  boil," 
2  Chron.  xxxv.  13  is  a  decisive  proof  to  the  contrary.  The  word 
is  there  used  in  both  senses — to  roast  with  fire,  and  to  seethe  in 
pots. 


NOTE  G.— P.  327 

THE   MEDIATING   VIEW   OF   THE   PRIESTLY   OODB 

THE  following  will  indicate  the  general  standpoint  of  the 
mediating  critics.  Dillmann  says :  "  The  priestly  writing  was 
and  remained  at  first  a  private  document,  without  royal  or  public 
sanction,  and  for  the  most  part  propagated  only  in  priestly  circles  " 
(Num.- Jot.  p.  666).  Kittel  says:  "The  whole  character  of  P 
proves  it  to  have  been  originally  not  a  public  ecclesiastical  law, 
but — though  not  merely  a  private  document — a  programme  known 
at  first  to  the  priests  alone,  and  struggling  long  for  recognition 
till  favouring  circumstances  helped  it  to  obtain  this"  (Hist,  of 
Heb*.  i.  p.  102).  Baudissin  says:  "The  employment  of  Levites 
for  this  office  [in  the  sanctuary]  appears  to  be  a  matter  of  pure 
theory  on  the  part  of  the  legislation,  whose  system  elsewhere  also 
is  based  in  large  measure  upon  ideal  construction  "  (Diet,  of  Bible, 
iv.  pp.  88-9).  "  The  tabernacle,  i.e.,  the  antedated  single  temple  " 
(p.  89). 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  X 
NOTE  A.— P.  345 

KLOSTERMANN   ON   THE    RELATION   OP   JE   AND   P 

THE  view  indicated  in  the  text  is  substantially  that  taken  by 
Klostermann  in  his  Der  Pentateuch,  pp.  9,  10,  etc.  Klostermann 
takes  it  to  be  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  proofs  of  the  good  taste 
and  feeling  for  the  natural  in  Wellhausen  that  he  has  come  to 
see  that  the  narrative  of  Q  [  =  P],  as  criticism  separates  it  out, 
has  no  independent  subsistence,  and  is  only  to  be  explained  by 
reference  to  the  Jehovistic  narration,  and  that  the  part  of  Q  left 
out  by  R  [the  redactor],  and  compensated  for  by  an  element 
from  JE,  is  parallel  to  the  latter,  and  presumably  not  much 
different  from  it.  He  regrets  that  Wellhausen  has  not  advanced 
to  the  point  of  recognising  in  this  sharply-defined  Q,  whose 
narrative  is  framed  with  reference  to  JE,  and  enclasps  this  element 
as  its  inner  content,  the  everywhere  sought  for  but  nowhere 
found  redactor  himself. 


NOTE  B.— P.  364 

COLENSO'S   NUMERICAL   OBJECTIONS 

THE  following  are  a  few  specimens  of  the  kind  of  reasoning  ex- 
tolled by  Kuenen  and  others  as  irrefragable.  The  instances  are 
those  alluded  to  in  the  text : — 

First,  on  the  assembling  at  the  tabernacle :  the  width  of  the 
tabernacle  being  10  cubits  or  18  ft.,  then,  "allowing  2  ft.  in 
width  for  each  full-grown  man,  9  men  could  just  have  stood  in 
front  of  it  ...  allowing  18  inches  between  each  rank  of  9 
men,"  they  would  have  reached  "for  a  distance  of  more  than 
100,000  ft — in  fact  nearly  20  miles  I  or  if  we  reckon  the  old 

622 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  X  523 

men,  women,  and  children,  for  a  distance  of  more  than  60 
miles"  (Pent.,  People's  edit.  pp.  30-31.  Cf.  Pt.  i.  p.  33). 

On  the  priest's  duties:  "In  fact,  we  have  to  imagine  the 
priest  having  himself  to  carry,  on  Jiis  back  on  foot,  from  St.  Paul's 
to  the  outskirts  of  the  metropolis,  '  the  skin,  and  flesh,  and  head, 
and  legs,  and  inwards,  and  dung,'  even  the  whole  bullock"  (Pent. 
Pt.  L  p.  40).  This  absurd  assertion  is  slightly  toned  down  in 
the  People's  edition  (p.  33),  though  still  with  a  clinging  to  the 
idea  that  the  priest  did  all  the  menial  duties  himself. 

On  the  sacrifices  after  childbirth  in  the  wilderness :  "  Looking 
at  the  directions  in  Lev.  i.,  iv.,  we  can  scarcely  allow  less  than 
5  minutes  for  each  sacrifice ;  so  that  these  sacrifices  alone  [250 
burnt  offerings  and  250  sin  oSeringsper  diem],  if  offered  separately, 
would  have  taken  2,500  minutes,  or  nearly  42  hours,  and  could 
not  have  been  offered  in  a  single  day  of  12  hours,  though  each  of 
the  3  priests  had  been  employed  in  the  one  sole  incessant  labour 
of  offering  them,  without  a  moment's  rest  or  intermission  "  (Pent. 
Pt  i.  pp.  123-4).  The  truth  is,  that,  supposing  the  whole  500 
pigeons  to  have  been  obtainable,  and  to  have  been  punctiliously 
offered,  the  whole  work  could  have  been  done  in  a  couple  of 
hours !  As,  however,  we  read  that  the  rite  of  circumcision  was 
suspended  in  the  wilderness  (Josh.  v.  5) — a  statement  which, 
at  all  events,  is  part  of  "  the  story  " — it  follows  that  the  sacrifices 
in  question,  which  are  prescribed  to  be  offered  33  days  after 
circumcision,  were  not  offered  at  all ! 


NOTE  C.— P.  370 
CHRIST'S  TESTIMONY  TO  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

Wi  have  not  in  this  argument  sought  unduly  to  press  our  Lord's 
testimony,  for  we  allow  that  His  words  may  fairly  be  in  part 
explained  by  His  acceptance  of  current  views  of  authorship,  which 
it  was  no  part  of  His  mission  to  pronounce  upon.  We  do  not,  by 
quoting  Homer  or  Shakespeare  under  these  names,  pronounce  a 
judgment  on  the  literary  questions  involved  in  the  ascription  of 
certain  poems  or  plays  to  these  persons  as  their  authors.  Our  Lord 
naturally  referred  to  the  books  He  was  citing  as  "  Moses "  or 
"  David,"  or  "  Isaiah,"  and  no  more  thought  of  giving  an  authori- 
tative judgment  on  the  history  or  mode  of  origin  of  these  books, 
than  He  had  it  in  view  to  settle  questions  of  modern  science  as  to 
the  motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  the  age  of  the  earth,  or  the 


524  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  X 

evolution  of  species.  But  it  remains  the  fact  that  our  Lord  did 
constantly  assume  the  Mosaicity  of  the  books  of  the  law  He 
quoted ;  based  on  the  reality  of  the  revelation  they  contained ; 
knew  in  the  strength  of  His  divine  and  human  consciousness  that 
God's  word  was  conveyed  to  men  through  them ;  had  even,  if  the 
narrative  of  the  Transfiguration  is  to  be  believed,  supersensible 
communion  with  Moses  and  Elias  themselves.  While  refusing  to 
be  "  a  judge  and  a  divider  "  in  questions  of  merely  literary  interest, 
He  would,  we  may  believe,  have  pronounced  a  very  emphatic 
judgment  on  some  of  the  modern  theories  of  Scripture,  had  these 
been  brought  before  Him. 


NOTE  D.— P.  370 

THB   SAMARITAN    PENTATEUCH 

THB  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  written  in  old  Hebrew  characters, 
after  being  long  lost  to  view,  was  brought  to  light  again  in  the 
beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century,  since  which  time  other 
MSS.  have  been  acquired.  Various  views  have  been  taken 
of  its  origin;  but  that  which  has  most  probability,  and  seems 
now  generally  accepted,  connects  it  with  the  expulsion  by 
Nehemiah  (chap.  xiii.  28  ff.)  of  one  of  the  sons  of  Joiada,  son  of 
Eliashib,  the  high  priest,  because  he  had  allied  himself  in  marriage 
with  Sanballat,  the  Horonite.  Josephus  (Ant.  xi.  7.  8)  confuses 
the  chronology  of  this  incident,  and  connects  it  with  the  founding 
of  the  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim,  which  he  places  a  hundred 
years  later,  in  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great.  The  value  of 
the  Samaritan  text  was  at  first  greatly  exaggerated  ;  latterly, 
especially  since  the  exhaustive  examination  of  Gesenius,  it  has 
lost  nearly  all  credit  in  comparison  with  the  Hebrew.  Only 
four  readings  were  thought  by  Gesenius  to  be  preferable  to  the 
Hebrew  (Gen.  iv.  8;  xxii.  13;  xlix.  14;  xiv.  14),  and  even 
these  are  now  rejected  by  most.  On  age  and  origin,  see  the 
discussions  in  Hengstenberg,  Pentateuch,  i.  pp.  69  ff. ;  a  lucid 
examination  in  Bleek,  Introd.  i.  pp.  366 ff.;  Kyle,  O.T.  Canon, 
pp.  91  ff. ;  and  on  the  question  of  text,  and  generally,  the 
valuable  article  by  Em.  Deutsch  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  Bible,  iii. 
pp.  1106  ff.;  Bleek,  ii.  pp.  371,  391  ff.j  W.  E.  Smith,  O.T.  in 
J.  C.,  pp.  61-62,  etc. 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  X  525 


NOTE  E.— P.  375 

BARLY   HEBREW   WRITING 

THB  square  Hebrew  character  (gradually  introduced  after  the 
exile)  was  preceded  by  the  Phoenician,  the  origin  and  early 
history  of  which  is  obscure.  The  oldest  known  example  of 
this  writing  is  Mesha's  inscription  on  the  Moabite  Stone  (c.  850) ; 
the  oldest  example  in  Hebrew  is  the  Siloam  inscription  (reign 
of  Hezekiah).  (Cf.  Driver  on  "  Early  History  of  the  Hebrt-\v 
Alphabet "  in  Text  of  Samuel,  pp.  1 1  IF.)  A  few  old  seals 
(perhaps  eighth  century)  have  inscriptions  in  this  character,  and 
jar-handles  found  at  Gezer  (after  Solomon)  bear  the  words 
"  To  the  king,  Hebron  "  (or  other  place).  It  is  thought  by  some 
that  the  use  of  this  character  by  the  Hebrews,  or  in  Canaan 
generally,  probably  does  not  date  much  before  1000  B.C. 
Previous  to  that  time,  it  is  supposed,  the  script  in  use  was  the 
cuneiform.  The  Tel  el-Amarna  letters  (c.  1400)  are  written  in 
cuneiform,  and  cuneiform  tablets  have  been  discovered  at  Gezer 
and  Lachish.  Professor  Paton,  Director  of  the  American  School 
of  Oriental  Research  in  Palestine,  says :  "  There  is  no  archaeological 
evidence  that  the  ancient  Babylonian  cuneiform  was  displaced 
by  the  so-called  Phoenician  character  before  this  date  "  (Horn. 
Rev.,  Dec.  1904,  p.  426;  so  Conder,  The  First  Bible,  p.  75). 
This,  however,  is  an  inference  from  our  ignorance,  and  seems 
unlikely.  The  character  on  Mesha's  Stone  must  have  been  long 
in  use,  and  could  not  be  unknown  to  the  Hebrews.  Something 
depends  on  the  origin  of  the  Phoenician  character  itself.  Doubt 
is  now  cast  on  its  derivation  from  Egypt  (Taylor's  theory),  and 
connections  are  being  sought  with  early  Minaean  (S.  Arabic), 
Hittite,  and  other  characters.  Much  is  conjectural,  but  evidence 
seems  accumulating  that  an  old  closely-related  alphabet  was  in 
use  in  very  early  times  and  was  probably  known  to  the  Israelites 
(cf.  Hommel,  Ancient  Heb.  Trad.  pp.  77  ff.,  276-7 ;  8ayce, 
Higher  Grit.  pp.  39-44).  Further  discoveries  are  no  doubt  yet 
in  store  for  the  explorer.  In  pre-Mosaic  times  the  Babylonian 
cuneiform  and  Egyptian  hieroglyphic  (while  in  Egypt)  were  the 
likeliest  scripts  to  be  used,  and  cuneiform  tablet-writing  probably 
in  some  measure  continued  after  the  settlement  in  Canaan.  We 
may  assume  that  an  alphabetic  character  was  in  use  in  Israel 
from  the  dawn  of  literature.  On  connection  of  early  Hebrew 
with  old  Arabic,  cf.  Margoliouth,  art.  "  Language  of  O.T.,"  in 
Hastings'  Diet,  of  Bible,  iii.  pp.  26  ff. 


526        NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  X 


NOTE  F.— P.  375 

HYPOTHESES   IN   CRITICISM 

WHEN  it  is  urged  that  the  assumption  of  early  documentary 
sources  in  Israel  is  a  "  mere  hypothesis,"  we  have  to  ask — What 
is  the  current  critical  view  itself  but  a  congeries  of  hypotheses, 
many  of  them  of  the  most  doubtful  character?  What,  e.g.,  but 
hypothesis — if  not  mere  hypothesis — are  the  assumed  J  and  E 
writers,  or  schools  of  writers,  of  the  ninth,  eighth,  and  seventh 
centuries  B.C.  and  later ;  or  the  prolific  P  school  of  writers  in 
the  exile ;  or  the  numerous  hypothetical  redactors  and  inter- 
polators of  the  text ;  or  the  Judaean  and  Ephraimitic  localisation 
of  J  and  E,  etc.  ?  What  but  hypotheses  are  such  statements, 
with  which  critical  writings  abound,  as  that  "the  narrative  of 
Abraham  and  Amraphel  in  Gen.  xiv.  may  be  partly  based  on 
information  derived  from  Babylon,  possibly  by  Jews  of  the 
captivity " ;  or,  "  we  may  naturally  suppose  that  the  stories 
[connected  with  the  Israelitish  sanctuaries]  were  preserved  at 
these  places,  and  that  the  authors  of  the  Primitive  and  Elohistic 
documents  derived  them  from  the  priests,  just  as  Herodotus 
gathered  information  from  the  priests  in  Egypt  and  Babylon"; 
or  that  "  it  is  probable  that  the  Israelites  might  borrow  or  adopt 
traditions  of  their  other  neighbours,  e.g.,  the  Phoenicians, 
Philistines,  Ammon,  Moab,  and  Edom";  or  that  the  stories  in 
Genesis  may  represent  those  "told  long  ago  round  the  camp- 
fires  of  the  wandering  tribes  by  mothers  to  their  children,  and 
repeated  by  maidens  at  the  well,  by  the  guests  at  rustic  merry- 
makings, and  in  the  evening  gatherings  of  the  peasants  when 
the  day's  work  was  done  "  (Bennett,  Genesis,  pp.  18-21).  We 
would  only  ask — Do  such  casually  collected  stories  yield  the 
kind  of  history  we  have  in  the  Book  of  Genesis?  Why  may 
we  not  in  turn  "suppose,"  with  far  greater  probability, 
that  we  have  here  carefully  transmitted  traditions  of  real  persons 
and  events,  and  that  these  began  to  be  written  down  in  very  early 
times — e.g.,  in  Egypt  under  Joseph?  There  are  as  many  and 
good  grounds  for  the  one  class  of  statements  as  for  the  other. 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  X  527 

NOTE  G.— P.  376 

THE  IDEA   OF   "  OO-OPERATION  "  IK  CRITICAL  THKORT 

IT  deserves  remark  how  the  critical  theory  itself  approximates  to 
the  idea  of  "  co-operation "  in  its  view  of  the  production  of  the 
Levitical  laws,  and  other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  the  exile 
and  after  it,  by  "schools"  of  writers  working  more  or  less  con- 
temporaneously. Plainly  the  more  its  Js  and  Ps  and  Rs  are 
brought  down  into  exilian  and  post-exilian  times,  the  nearer 
it  comes  to  a  view  of  joint-production  by  minds  animated  by 
the  same  spirit,  and  governed  by  one  set  of  ideas  (cf.  p.  375). 
]'illmann  comes  even  nearer  in  his  view  of  the  "simultaneous 
working  up  of  the  documents  of  the  Pentateuch,"  by  a  single 
r«  factor  (Genesi*,  i.  pp.  18-21).  "It  seems,"  he  says,  "if  one 
takes  Genesis  into  consideration  by  itself,  that  a  simultaneous 
working  together  of  the  three  documents  is  not  excluded,  but 
rather  recommended"  (p.  21).  Principal  Cave  also  has  interest- 
ingly shown  how  the  radical  hypothesis  of  Vernes,  and  others  of 
the  extremer  school,  works  round  to  a  practical  con  tempo  ran  eous- 
ness  of  authorship  (Inspiration  of  O.T.,  pp.  173-5). 


NOTE  H.— P.  377 

BTATE   OP  THE  HEBREW  TEXT 

THAT  there  is  corruption  in  the  Hebrew  text,  all  existing  M88.  of 
which  are  understood  to  go  back  to  a  single  archetype  (possibly 
of  the  first  century  A.D.  ;  cf.  Driver,  Text  of  Samuel,  pp.  xxxvii  ff. ; 
Swute,  Introd.  to  O.T.  Greek,  p.  319),  every  scholar  is  aware,  and 
criticism  is  justified  in  applying  its  best  skill,  with  the  aid  of 
versions,  etc.,  to  remove  its  defects.  But  the  statements  made  as 
t«-  the  freedoms  taken  with  the  text  in  earlier  times  are  some- 
times greatly  exaggerated.  (Cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  O.T.  in  J.  C.t 
pp.  90  tf. ;  above  all,  Cheyne.)  Joseph  us  and  Philo  testify  to  the 
jealous  care  with  which  the  Scriptures,  specially  the  law  of 
Moses,  was  regarded,  and  their  testimony  carries  us  back  a  good 
way  beyond  their  own  day.  "So  long  a  period  having  now 
elapsed,"  says  the  former,  "  no  one  has  dared  either  to  add  or  to 
take  away  from  them,  or  to  chnnge  anything"  (C.  Apion,  i.  8)  ; 
and  the  latter  testifies,  "they  change  not  even  a  word  of  the 
things  written  by  him  [Moses] "  (in  Euseb.  Prep.  Evany.  viiL  6). 


528  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  X 

But,  apart  from  versions,  often  helpful,  but  requiring  to  be  used 
with  caution,  we  have  interesting  internal  evidence  as  to  the 
general  fidelity  with  which  the  text  has  been  preserved,  and  the 
degree  of  corruption  or  change  it  has  sustained.  The  purity  and 
beauty  of  style  of  the  JE  narratives  in  Genesis  sufficiently  prove 
that  they  cannot  be  seriously  corrupted.  Specially,  however, 
inay  appeal  be  made  to  the  numerous  parallel  passages,  of  different 
types,  which  furnish  us  with  direct  means  of  comparison. 
Allowing  for  obvious  mistakes,  intentional  changes,  and,  in  the 
case  of  Chronicles,  occasional  paraphrase  and  supplement,  we 
have  a  large  basis  of  identical  matter,  showing  with  what 
accurate  care  the  text  must  have  been  preserved  through  long 
periods.  We  may  refer  to  Ex.  xxv.-xxxi.,  with  the  parallel 
recitals  of  execution  of  the  work  in  chaps,  xxxv.-xxxix. ;  the  forty 
or  more  sections  in  Chronicles  parallel  to  others  in  Samuel  and 
Kings  (e.g.,  1  Sam.  xxxi.  with  1  Chron.  x.  1-12 ;  2  Sam.  vii. 
with  1  Chron.  xvii.  ;  1  Kings  x.  with  2  Chron.  ix.  1-12) ;  parallels 
in  Psalms,  as  Ps.  xiv.  with  Ps.  liii. ;  Ps.  xviii.  with  2  Sam.  xxii. ; 
Ps.  cv.  1-15  and  xcvi.,  with  1  Chron.  xvi.  8-33,  etc.  When  the 
length  of  time  and  difficulties  of  transcription  are  considered,  the 
wonder  is,  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Driver,  "  that  the  text  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  as  relatively  free  from  corruption  as  appears  to  be 
the  case  "  (Notes  on  Text  of  Samuel,  p.  xxxviii).  Cf .  remarks  in 
Bleek,  Introd.  iL  pp.  391  ff. 

As  to  versions,  if  there  have  been  times  when  there  has  been 
undervaluation  of  these,  probably  the  present  tendency  is  to 
overvaluation  of  them,  especially  of  the  LXX  (on  which  see 
Swete's  Introduction),  in  comparison  with  the  Massoretic  text. 
Kb'nig  has  some  remarks  on  this  in  his  art.  "Judges"  in  Did. 
of  Bible  (ii.  p.  809).  In  concluding  on  the  condition  of  the  text 
in  Judges,  he  says  (with  special  reference  to  Mez  on  the  Bible  of 
Josephus) :  "  Still  this  investigation  has  confirmed  the  present 
writer's  view  that  the  traditional  Massoretic  text  is  the  relatively 
best  source  from  which  to  ascertain  the  words  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment This  judgment  is  also  entirely  substantiated  by  the 
investigation  into  the  text  of  Samuel,  which  Lohr  has  carried  out 
in  the  Kurzgef.  Exeg.  Handb.  on  Samuel,  1898,  pp.  Ixixff."  Cf. 
his  "Introduction,"  pp.  114-6.  (On  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch, 
gee  above,  p.  524.) 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  XI 

NOTE  A.— P.  402 

ETHNOLOGICAL   RELATIONS   IN   GEN.   Z 

IN  addition  to  the  notices  in  the  text,  a  few  words  may  be  said 
on  the  ethnological  relations  of  the  Cnnuanites,  as  indicated  in 
<  "•!!.  x.  6,  13-15  &  All  ancient  writers  trace  the  Canaanites, 
including  the  Phffinicians,  to  an  original  seat  on  the  borders 
of  the  Persian  Gulf.  Thence  they  found  their  way  westward 
and  northward  into  Palestine.  Interesting  questions  that  arise 
are  :  (1)  When  did  this  emigration  (or  these  emigrations)  take 
place  t  (2)  How  are  the  Canaanites  to  be  classed  ethnographi- 
callyf  (1)  Biblical  and  extra-Biblical  notices  lead  us  to  regard 
the  Phoenician  settlements  as  the  oldest  (cf.  Gen.  x.  15 : 
"Canaan  begat  Sidon  his  firstborn")  Herodotus  puts  the 
founding  of  Tyre  about  2300  years  before  his  own  time  (1L  14), 
or  about  2750  B.C.,  and  he  is  probably  not  much  too  early.  A 
new  note  of  time  is  furnished  by  the  excavations  at  Gezer  (see 
above,  p.  500),  which  show  that  Gezer  was  taken  possession  of  in 
an  immigration  of  Canaanites  about  2500  B.C.  Probably  the 
settlements  in  the  south  were  still  later.  This  brings  us  to  a 
time  not  much  earlier  than  the  Klamitic  invasion  of  Gen.  xiv. 
All  the  Biblical  notices  show  that  before  this  Palestine  was 
peopled  with  other  tribes,  many  of  whose  names  are  given,  and 
the  conquest  of  whom  was  not  completed  till  long  after  (Gen.  xiv. 
5,  6  ;  DeuL  iL  10-12,  20-23).  (2)  The  second  question  is  as 
to  the  ethnographical  connection.  The  Phoenicians  and  the 
Canaanites  generally  spoke  a  Semitic  language.  This  is  usually 
supposed  to  imply  that  they  were  of  Semitic  origin.  The  Bible, 
on  the  other  hand,  classes  them  as  Hamites  (Gen.  ix.  18,  22 ; 
x.  6).  Canaan  is  said  to  be  the  brother  of  dish,  Mizraim,  and 
Phut  (Gen.  x.  6).  It  is  interesting  to  lind  that  ren- nt  .-.  holars, 
on  independent  grounds,  seem  to  endorse  this  relationship 

34 


530  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  XI 

Flinders  Petrie,  e.g.,  in  his  History  of  Egypt,  derives  the  dynastic 
Egyptians  from  the  same  region  as  the  Canaanitps,  i.e.,  from  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  Persian  Gulf.  Thence  they  worked  round 
hy  Pun  or  Punt  (akin  to  Ethiopia),  at  the  south  end  of  the  Red 
Sea,  into  the  Nile  valley,  while  another  contingent  pressed  north- 
ward into  the  Delta  to  Caphtor  on  the  Mediterranean  coast,  and 
thence  colonised  Philistia  and  Phoenicia.  "We  see,"  says  Dr. 
Petrie,  "  the  sense  of  the  kinship  stated  in  the  tenth  chapter  of 
Genesis  between  Mizraim  (Egypt),  Caphtorim  ( Kef  t-ur  =  greater 
Phoenicia  on  the  Delta  coast),  and  Philistim  (or  the  Phoenicians 
in  Syria)"  (Hist.  L  pp.  12-15).  It  would  be  more  correct  to  say 
that  Gen.  x.  14  stops  the  movement  with  the  Philistines  (cf. 
Deut.  ii.  23;  Jer.  xlvii.  4;  Amos  ix.  7),  and  connects  the 
Phoenicians  (Sidon,  ver.  15)  with  the  Canaanite  branch,  perhaps 
in  a  separate  immigration  by  a  separate  route.  The  question  of 
language  presents  less  difficulty  when  it  is  remembered  that  the 
Canaanites  came  from  the  Babylonian  region,  and  that  the 
whole  west  from  an  early  period  was  saturated  with  Babylonian 
influences.  They  may  easily  have  brought  with  them  a  Semitic 
speech. 


NOTE  B.— P.  408 
OOGNATENESS  OF  BABYLONIAN  AND  HEBREW  TRADITIONS 

THE  relation  of  the  traditions  may  be  compared  with  that  of 
cognate  branches  of  the  same  family  of  languages,  e.g.,  Latin  an<l 
Greek. 

Kittel  says  of  the  conceptions  of  the  Creation  and  the  Flood  : 
"  They  had  long  been  known  to  Israel,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
they  had  existed  as  an  immemorial  heritage  in  the  East,  and  the 
Israelites  had  imported  the  substance  of  them  from  their  ancient 
home.  Everything  tends  to  show  that  this  material,  whether 
found  in  Babylon  or  in  Israel,  is  very  ancient,  and  the  simplest 
explanation  of  its  subsequently  distinctive  forms  in  both  countries 
is  to  be  found  in  the  assumption  that  both  go  back  to  a  common 
original.  .  .  .  The  Biblical  conception  of  the  universe,  which 
constitutes  a  part  of  our  faith,  and  in  so  far  as  it  does  so,  is  for  us 
not  a  Babylonian  conception,  but  extremely  ancient  knowledge, 
]>:irtly  the  result  of  experience,  partly  revealed  by  God  and 
preserved  among  His  people"  (Bab.  Excavs.  and  the  Bible,  pp. 
48-50). 

Hommel  says  that  with  the  recognition  of  the  monotheism  of 
Abraham — the  "  Friend  of  God,"  who  migrated  from  the  confines 


NOTES  TO  CHAPT1.K  XI  $3* 

of  Babylonia  in  Palestine,  "we  are  put  in  possession  of  a  new 
light  on  Primitive  Biblical  History.  ...  I  now  no  longer  hesitate 
to  say  that  the  monotheistic  concept  of  the  Biblical  text,  and 
specially  of  the '  Priestly  Code'  (Gen.  i.),  must,  compared  with  the 
Babylonian  version,  be  regarded  as  the  original"  (Anc.  Heb.  Trad. 
pp.  308-10). 

"  In  this,"  says  Oettli,  "  the  possibility  is  conceded  that  the 
Babylonian  myth  goes  back  upon  a  purer  original  form,  and  first 
in  the  course  of  centuries  became  developed  into  the  fantas- 
tically variegated  form  in  which  we  now  possess  it."  —  (Der 
Kampf  urn  Bibel  und  Babel,  p.  16). 


NOTE  C.— P.  413 

ALLEGED   "MIDRASH"   CHARACTER   OF   OBN.    XIV 

WELLHADSKN  holds  this  chapter  to  be  one  of  the  very  latest 
(post-exilinn)  insertions  into  the  Book  of  Genesis,  and  absolutely 
without  historical  worth.  He  refuses  even  to  acknowledge,  with 
Noldeke,  the  excellence  in  style  of  the  narration  (Compos,  d.  Hex. 
pp.  311-3). 

Kueneu  thinks  that  in  this  chapter  the  redactor  "  has  given 
us  a  fragment  of  a  post-exilian  version  of  Abram's  life,  a  Afutrash, 
such  as  the  Chronicler  had  among  his  sources"  (Ilex.  p.  324). 
He  allows,  however,  that  "  the  story  is  in  its  proper  place,  for  it 
nrnapposuu  Lot's  separation  from  Abram,  and  his  settlement  in 
Sodom  "(p.  143). 

Kautzsch  says  of  this  "  remarkable  "  chapter  "  that  it  seems  to 
have  been  taken  from  a  Midrash  of  the  patriarchal  history,"  and 
regards  it  as  an  addition  of  the  last  redactor  (Lit.  of  0.71,  p.  119). 

Cheyne  declares  his  agreement  with  Wellhausen,  Stade, 
Mayer,  Kautzsch,  in  the  view  that  it  is  "a  post-exilian  Midrash  " 
(Oxf.  Hex.  L  p.  168).  E.  Meyer,  quoted  by  him,  thought  that  the 
Jew  who  inserted  it  "  had  obtained  in  Babylon  minute  informa- 
tion as  to  the  early  history  of  the  land"  (Gesch.  de»  Alterthumt, 
i.  p.  166). 

Addis  asks:  "To  what  does  this  proof  amount t  Simply  to 
this,  that  the  writer  had  acquired  some  slight  knowledge  of 
liabylonian  history,  as,  doubtless,  many  a  Jew  in  exile  did  "  (Doct. 
of  Hex.  ii  p.  212). 

H.  P.  Smith  speaks  of  the  "  desperate  attempts  "  which  "  have 
been  made  of  late  years  to  rescue  the  historicity  of  this  chapter, 
on  the  ground  of  Babylonian  literature"  (0.7*.  Hitt.  p.  37). 


532  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  XI 

Yet  the  "  Midrash  "  thus  confidently  assumed  is  nothing  but 
a  fiction  evolved  from  the  critical  imagination.  Is  it  likely  that 
a  Jew  in  Babylon  would  be  found  devoting  himself  to  the 
deciphering  of  Assyrian  cuneiform  inscriptions?  And  where 
is  the  proof  of  his  "  slight "  knowledge  t 


NOTE  D.— P.  418 

THB   RESURRECTION   OP  MYTHS 

THE  effect  of  discovery  has  been  a  wonderful  resuscitation  of  the 
credit  of  stories  and  traditions  long  regarded  as  myths.  "We  refer 
in  the  text  to  the  discoveries  affecting  Menes  and  the  early 
Egyptian  dynasties.  It  has  been  the  same  elsewhere.  "The 
spade  of  Dr.  Schliemann  and  his  followers  have  again  brought  to 
light  the  buried  empire  of  Agamemnon.  Our  knowledge  of  the 
culture  and  power  of  the  princes  of  Mycenae  and  Tiryns  in  the 
heroic  age  of  Greece  is  no  longer  dependent  on  the  questionable 
memory  of  tradition"  (Sayce,  Higher  Grit.  p.  18).  "  I  well 
remember,"  says  Professor  Kittel,  "  in  my  student  days  how  the 
scorn  of  the  whole  body  of  the  learned,  and  the  ridicule  even  of 
the  comic  papers,  was  poured  on  him.  (Dr.  Schliemann)  when  he 
came  forward  to  announce  his  discovery  of  Priam's  city,  his 
palace,  and  his  treasures.  For  in  these  days  it  was  an  article  of 
belief  with  scholars  that  our  knowledge  of  the  history  of  ancient 
Greece  practically  began  with  Herodotus  and  the  time  of  the 
Persian  wars"  (Bdbyl.  Excavs.  p.  74). 

The  remarks  of  the  same  author  on  the  Cretan  excavations  are 
full  of  interest  in  this  connection.  He  tells  of  "  a  learned  friend 
who  was  on  his  way  back  to  Crete,  and  who  had  seen  there  the 
excavations  undertaken  by  Evans,  and  was  able  to  boast  that  he 
had  sat  upon  the  throne  and  in  the  palace  of  King  Minos,  a 
monarch  well  remembered  by  us  all  at  school,  and  universally 
regarded  by  us  as  the  mere  product  of  a  myth"  (p.  15).  In  a 
note,  he  adds :  "  Minos  has  frequently  been  regarded  as  a  Cretan 
god,  also  a  personification  of  Zeus,  or  again  of  the  Phoenician 
domination,  and  of  Baal-Melkart  or  of  Moon-worship,  or  even  as 
a  Sun-god, "  etc. 

Again :  "  Much  that  we  previously  held,  and  seemed  justified 
in  holding,  as  mythical,  is  now  coming  into  the  light  of  history ; 
and,  side  by  side  with  the  already  mentioned  Minos,  we  have  now, 
through  the  latest  discovered  Assyrian  inscriptions,  come  to 
accept  the  historical  existence  of  King  Midas  of  Phrygia,  of  whom 


NOTES  TO  rilAlTKK  XI  533 

we  previously  knew  nothing  but  the  story  of  his  ass's  ears,  but 
who  is  now  recognised  :i  il  ;ui<l  worthy  ruler  <>f  the  eighth 

century  before  ( 'hn-t  "  (p.  16).  He  shows  how  Midas  "continues 
at  the  present  time  to  be  described  as  an  ancient  divinity  of  the 
Northern  Greeks  and  Phrygians,  more  exactly  as  a  'blessing- 
scattering  nature-god'  ...  in  the  form  of  an  animal.  ...  To 
this  ancient  demon  of  vegetable  life,"  etc. 


NOTE  K— P.  419 

TH«   IDENTIFICATION   OP    RAMB8ES    AND    PITHOM 

THE  problems  about  the  city  Raamses  (Rameses)  in  Ex.  i  11, 
are  not  yet  satisfactorily  solved.  There  would  seem,  in  fact,  to 
have  been  tico  cities  of  this  name  —  one,  of  which  we  have 
Kgyptian  accounts,  the  city  of  Zoan  or  Tan  is,  of  the  Hyksos,  in 

I  >elta,  which  Rameses  n.  rebuilt,  and  called  by  his  name ; 
the  other  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Pithom,  in  Goshen  (cf.  Drhi-r, 
Authority  and  Archatology,  p.  55).  Sayce  at  first  (with  Bnig.«  li, 
etc.)  identified  Kameses  with  Tanis  (Fresh  Light,  p.  65),  tin  n 
drstinguistad  two  cities  (Higher  Criticism,  p.  239),  now  again 
appear*  to  identify  the  Biblical  Raamses  with  the  Egyptian 
!':  Ilamessu,  but  disconnects  the  latter  from  Tanis  (u  Raamses  " 
in  Did.  of  Bible,  iv.  pp.  188-9;  Monument  Facts,  p.  90);  so 
Pinches  (O.T.  in  Light  of  Hist.  Records,  p.  305).  Brugsch,  also, 
after  the  discovery  of  Pithom,  gave  up  his  earlier  view  of  the 
site  of  Rameses.  It  still  seems  to  us  more  probable  that  the 
"  store  city "  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  gay  and  splendid 

Umesau.  On  the  |K>ssible  greater  antiquity  of  the  name,  seo 
the  valuable  note  in  Canon  Cook,  Speaker's  Com.,  "Exodus," 
p.  486. 

The  situation  of  Pithom  is  settled  by  M.  Naville's  discovery, 
and  in~rri|. turns  of  Rameses  n.  show  the  connection  of  that 
Phar:t»h  \vith  it.  M.  Naville,  at  the  same  time,  "never  had  the 
good  fortune  to  find  the  king's  name  stamped  on  any  of  the 
bricks"  (Report,  July  1883).  The  evidence,  however,  is  very 
abundant  that  Ratneeea  1 1.  habitually  erased  the  names  of  his 
predecessors,  and  substituted  his  own  (cf.  Cook,  as  above,  p.  465). 
Pollard,  in  his  Land  of  the  Monuments,  gives  a  striking  instance 
from  this  very  district.  "  A  large  sphinx  in  black  marble  is  also 
very  interesting,  as  the  name  of  the  king  in  whose  reign  it  was 
carvod,  and  who«e  portrait  it  most  probably  bears,  has  been  erased. 
It  belonged,  unquestionably,  to  the  period  of  the  Hyksos,  or  the 


534  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  XI 

Shepherd  kings.  .  .  .  The  only  name  found  on  it  at  present  is 
that  of  Rameses  the  Great,  who  reigned  about  1400  B.C.  (?).  It 
was — most  unfortunately  for  the  records  of  Egyptian  history — 
the  practice  of  this  monarch  to  cut  his  name  on  almost  every 
object  that  presented  itself.  This  would  have  been  pardonable 
enough  had  he  allowed  all  previous  names  and  titles  to  remain ; 
but  he  seems  to  have  desired  to  obliterate  all  records  but  those  of 
his  own  ancestors"  (p.  18).  In  certain  inscriptions,  however, 
he  effaces  even  the  name  of  his  father  (Seti  i.),  and  substitutes 
his  own. 


NOTE  K— P.  429 

BELSHAZZAR   AND   BABYLON 

VALUABLE  confirmatory  light  is  thrown  on  the  Biblical  statements 
about  Belshazzar  in  a  full  and  interesting  communication  received 
from  Professor  K.  D.  Wilson,  of  Princeton,  after  the  text  of  this 
chapter  was  printed.  Professor  Wilson  shows  that  the  Aramaic 
word  for  "king"  is  the  equivalent  of  the  Assyrio-Babylonian 
words,  sarru,  malku,  pahatu,  bel  pahate,  and  hazannu.  Each  of 
the  bearers  of  these  titles  would  also  be  a  "ruler,"  and  the  last 
three  would  be  called  "magnates  of  the  king"  (cf.  Dan.  v.  1.). 
"  Any  one  of  these  Assyrian  words  might  be  rendered  into 
Hebrew  also  by  'king.'"  He  shows  how  this  will  explain  the 
title  "  king  "  in  the  cases  of  both  Belshazzar  and  Darius  the  Mede. 
As  to  Belshazzar's  position  in  Babylon,  he  remarks,  in  agreement 
with  the  view  taken  in  the  text :  "  From  the  above  account  of  the 
course  of  events  it  is  clear  that  for  the  national  party  that  was 
opposed  to  Cyrus,  the  son  of  the  king,  i.e.,  Belshazzar,  must 
have  been  de  facto  king  of  the  part  of  Babylon  which  had  not  yet 
surrendered,  from  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  month,  when  his 
father,  or  predecessor,  Nabonidus,  was  captured,  until  the  eighth 
month,  when  the  son  of  the  king  was  killed  in  an  attack  made 
upon  him  in  the  place  where  he  was  making  his  last  stand,  by 
Gobryas,  the  governor  of  Gutium."  Professor  Wilson  is  disposed 
to  identify  Gobryas  with  "Darius  the  Mede,"  and  furnishes  inter- 
esting facts  on  his  history,  titles,  the  use  of  the  word  "provinces," 
etc.  When  published  in  full,  Professor  Wilson's  researches  will 
be  of  the  greatest  value.  See  his  articles  on  "  Eoyal  Titles  "  in 
The  Princeton  Theological  Review,  1904  (April,  July),  1905 
(January,  April). 


NOTES  TO   CHAPTER  XII 


NOTE  A P.  440 

CRITICAL    ESTIMATE   OP   DAVID 

IN  the  critical  view  David  is  not  a  character  to  whom  psalms  can 
suitably  be  attributed.  Reuss,  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  Stade, 
W.  K.  Smith,  Cheyne,  etc.,  agree  in  this ;  more  mildly  Driver. 

Thus,  e.g.,  \Vellhausen  (on  Chronicles) :  "  See  what  Chronicles 
has  made  out  of  David !  The  founder  of  the  kingdom  has 
become  the  founder  of  the  temple  and  of  the  public  worship,  the 
king  and  hero  at  the  head  of  his  companions  has  become  the 
singer  and  master  of  ceremonies  at  the  head  of  a  swarm  of  priests 
and  Levites;  his  clearly-cut  figure  has  become  a  feeble  holy 
picture,  seen  through  a  cloud  of  incense,"  etc.  (Hist,  of  Israel, 
p.  182). 

In  the  first  edition  of  his  O.T.  in  J.  C.,  Professor  W.  R.  Smith 
wrote  :  "  It  may  appear  doubtful  whether  the  oldest  story  of  his 
life  set  forth  David  as  a  psalmist  at  all.  It  is  very  curious  that 
the  Book  of  Amos  (vi.  5)  represents  David  as  the  chosen  model  of 
the  dilettanti  nobles  of  Ephraim,  who  lay  stretched  on  beds  of 
ivory,  anointed  with  the  choicest  perfumes,  and  mingling  music 
with  their  cups  in  the  familiar  manner  of  Oriental  luxury  "  (p.  205). 
In  the  second  edition,  the  passage  is  slightly  modified,  and  more 
prominence  is  given  to  the  connection  of  David  with  the  nnnsii- 
of  the  sanctuary — still,  however,  conceived  of  as  "borrowed  from 
the  joyous  songs  of  the  vintage,"  and  so  as  giving  "  the  pattern 
alike  for  the  melodies  of  the  sanctuary  and  for  the  worldly  airs  of 
the  nobles  of  Samaria  "  (pp.  223-4). 

Professor  H.  P.  Smith  says:  "Later  times  made  David  a 
saint  after  their  own  ideal,  a  nursing  father  of  the  Old  Testament 
Church,  an  organiser  of  the  Levitical  system,  and  the  author  of 
Ui.-  P«alt*r.  It  is  this  picture  of  David  which  has  made  the 

Hi 


536  NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  XII 

most  difficulty  for  modern  apologists,  and  which  it  is  impossible 
to  reconcile  with  the  one  we  have  just  considered  "  (O.T.  Hist. 
p.  155). 

Cf.  Choyne,  Origin  of  Psalter,  pp.  192-4,  211;  Aids  to  the 
Devout  Study  of  Criticism,  pp.  16  ff. 


NOTE  B.— P.  458 

THE   UNITY   OF   SECOND   ISAIAH 

IT  would  take  us  too  far  afield  at  this  stage  to  discuss  the 
complicated  problems  involved  in  the  unity  of  Isaiah,  nor  is  this 
necessary  for  our  purpose.  There  seems,  however,  increasing 
reason  for  distrusting  the  post-exilian  origin  of  at  least  certain 
chapters  of  the  second  portion  of  the  book.  We  have  referred  as 
examples  to  chaps.  Ivii.,  Iviii.,  Ixv.  The  theory  that  these  and 
similar  chapters  are  postf-exilian  is  not  in  harmony  with  the 
idolatry  and  other  sins  charged  upon  the  people,  and  with  the  marks 
of  Palestinian  origin  (chap.  Ivii.).  But  then  the  unity  of  ideas  and 
style  comes  in  as  a  reason  against  separating  these  chapters  too 
widely  from  others,  and  suggests  that,  even  on  critical  principles, 
a  greater  portion  of  Isa.  xl.-lxvi.  may  be  pre-exilian  than  it  has  of 
late  been  customary  to  allow.  It  is  certain,  at  any  rate,  that  the 
dictum  of  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson  no  longer  holds  good  without 
qualification  :  "  The  chapters  Isa.  xl.-lxvi.  are  all  pitched  in  the 
tone  of  the  exile "  (O.T.  Prophecy,  p.  260).  Cf.  the  discussions 
of  Cheyne  on  Isaiah  (in  Com.  and  in  Introduction,  1895),  and 
Professor  G.  A.  Smith,  art.  "  Isaiah "  in  Diet,  of  Bible,  ii.  pp. 
493  £ 


NOTE  C.— P.  458 

THE    PROPHECIES   OP    DANIEL 

IT  is  indispensable  to  the  critical  view  to  make  the  prophecies  in 
Daniel  terminate  in  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  but  to 
••ffect  this  the  most  violent  expedients  have  to  be  adopted.  This 
is  specially  the  case  with  the  prophecies  of  the  four  empires 
(chaps,  ii.,  vii.),  and  of  the  seventy  weeks.  Dr.  Driver  says  of 
the  latter :  "  When  it  is  asked,  which  of  the  two  interpretations 
labours  under  the  most  serious  objection,  it  can  hardly  be  denied 


NOTES  TO  cnAlTF.K   XII  537 

that  it  is  the  traditional  one"  (Daniel,  p.  150).  To  our  mind, 
nothing  could  exceed  the  violence  to  the  text  on  the  critical 
view. 

1.  It  is  agreed  that  the  four  empires  in  Nebuchadnezzar's 
dream  in  chap.  ii.  are  identical  with  the  four  kingdoms  symbolised 
by  the  four  beasts  in  chap.  vii.     Further,  two  of  these  empires 
correspond  with  the  ram  and  he-goat  in  chap,  viii.,  interpreted  of 
the  Medo-Persian  and  Greek  kingdoms.     But  what  are  the  four 
empires  t     The  traditional  view  took  them  to  be  the  Babylonian, 
the  Medo- Persian,  the  Grecian,  and  the  Roman.     On  this  view, 
implied  in  Joeephus  (Ant.  x.   10.  4;  11.  7),  and  seemingly  iu 
Matt  xxiv.  15,  the  description  of  the  fourth  empire — the  Roman 
— is  strikingly  exact.     If,  however,  on  the  ground  that  prophecy 
cannot  reach  so  far,  the  Roman  empire  is  omitted,  how  are  the  four 
empires  to  be  made  out  t    Theories  are  legion,  but  everyone  seems 
forced  and  unnatural,  and  each  refutes  the  others.     Probably  the 
view  most  favoured  is  that  which  makes  the  Median  into  a  separate 
kingdom.     The  order  then  is  —  Babylonian,    Median,  Persian, 
Greek.     But  the  resort  is  a  desperate  one,  for,  as  the  critics 
admit,  there  never  existed  a  separate  Median  kingdom,  and  the 
Book  of  Daniel  throughout  views  the  Medo-Persian  kingdom  as 
one  (chape,  vi.  8,  12,  15  ;  viii.  20).     To  make  out  the  theory,  a 
separate  kingdom  has  to  be  erected  out  of  the  two  years'  reign  of 
the  obscure  "  Darius  the  Mede,"  who  exercised  at  best  a  delegated 
authority  (chap.  v.  31  ;  ix.  1).    If  anyone  can  seriously  believe  that 
this  brief  reign  answers  to  the  description  of  the  fierce,  devouring 
bear  of  Dan.   viL   5— one  of  the  "four  great  beasts  from  the 
sea"  (ver.  3) — argument  is  at  an  end.     The  fourth   kingdom, 
"ii  this  theory,  is  the  Grecian.     We  have  the  Grecian  kingdom 
clearly  portrayed  in  chap.  viii.  5  ff.,  21  ff.,  and  again  the  picture 
of  the  four  horns  of  the  he-goat,  succeeding  the  one  great  horn, 
and  of  the  "  little  horn  "  (Antiochus)  growing  out  of  one  of  these, 
is  marvellously  exact     But  the  fourth  kingdom  of  the  earlier 
visions,  though  it  also  has  a  "  little  horn  "  (growing  out  of  ten, 
chap.  vii.  8,  24),  of  which  Antiochus  may  be  viewed  as  the  Old 
Testament  prefigu ration,  bears  little  resemblance  to  the  picture  of 
the  Grecian — in  many  respect*  is  entirely  diverse  from  it, — while 
the  third  kingdom,  symbolised  by  the   leopard,  with   its  four 
wings  and  four  heads  (chap.   vii.  6),  answers  precisely  to  the 
latter. 

2.  The  seventy  weeks  in  Dan.  ix.  present  a  still  more  difficult 
problem — one,  indeed,  impossible  of  solution  on  the  assumption 
that  the  490  years  which  they  represent  are  to  run  out  about 
1 64  B.C.  or  earlier.     It  may  be  assumed  as  self-evident  that  the 
writer  mean*  the  7  +  62  +  1  weeks  of  his  prophecy  to  make  up 


the  total  70,  aiid  that  the  reckoning  cannot  begin  earlier,  though 
it  may  do  so  later,  than  the  decree  of  Cyrus  in  536  B.C.  But 
the  critical  theory  has  to  resort  to  such  makeshifts  as  making  the 
7  years  at  the  beginning  synchronise  with  the  first  part  of  the 
62,  and  dating  the  reckoning  from  Jeremiah's  prophecy  of  the 
70  years  (606  B.C.),  or  from  later  prophecies  in  587  B.C.  This 
is  "the  commandment  to  restore  and  build  Jerusalem."  But 
even  so  the  reckoning  will  not  square  with  the  history,  and  a 
serious  error  in  computation  has  to  be  assumed.  The  "  Anointed 
One "  of  ver.  25  is  different  from  the  "  Anointed  One  "  of  ver. 
26,  etc.  Much  simpler,  if  predictive  prophecy  is  admitted,  is 
the  view  which  regards  the  reckoning  as  commencing  with  the 
commission  of  Artaxerxes  to  Ezra  (457  B.C.),  which  inaugurated 
the  work  of  restoration,  and  was  confirmed  and  extended  by  the 
permission  to  Nehemiah  to  build,  13  years  later  (444  B.C.).  What 
else  than  Messianic  can  be  the  promises  of  ver.  24,  to  which  the 
seventy  weeks  are  viewed  as  extending? 

On  the  conflicting  views,  see  at  length  Pusey's  Daniel,  Lects. 
II,  III.,  IV.,  and  Driver's  Daniel,  pp.  94  ff.,  143  ff. 


NOTE  D.— P.  458 

KUKNBN    ON    UNFULFILLED   PROPHECIES 

THE  ablest  assault  on  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecies  is  in  the 
work  mentioned — Kuenen's  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel. 
Giosebrecht,  who  himself,  however,  allows  that  some  prophecies 
are  unfulfilled,  subjects  Kuenen  and  his  follower  Oort  to  a 
severe  criticism  in  his  Die  Berufsgabuny  der  Alttest.  Propheten  (pp. 
1-6),  and  describes  Kuenen's  work  as  a  "tendency"  production. 
In  this  there  is  little  doubt  that  he  is  correct.  It  might  be 
shown  that  the  objections  taken  to  the  fulfilment  of  the 
prophecies  rest  (1)  on  the  ignoring  of  a  large  mass  of  clear 
and  striking  fulfilments;  (2)  in  part  on  the  misreading  of  the 
prediction;  (3)  on  claiming  that  a  prophecy  is  not  fulfilled 
unless  it  is  fulfilled  in  its  completeness  at  once ;  (4)  on  over- 
looking the  lack  of  perspective  in  distant  prophecy,  and  the 
conditional  element  in  prophecy,  with  other  peculiarities  indicated 
in  the  text.  It  is  interesting  that  this  work  of  Kuenen's  was 
ultimately  recalled  in  its  English  form  by  Dr.  John  Muir,  who 
had  been  chiefly  instrumental  in  its  production,  and  contributed 
a  preface  to  it 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  XII  539 

NOTE  K— P.  459 

OBSTRUCTION    OP   THE   CANAANITE8 

ON  this  subject  the  words  of  the  late  liberal-minded  Dr.  A.  B. 
Bruce  are  worth  reproducing : — 

"  Before  adverse  judgment  is  pronounced,  it  is  necessary  to 
bear  in  mind  all  the  Scripture  says  on  the  subject.  The  Scripture 
representation  is  to  the  effect  that  while  God  has  destined  the 
descendants  of  Abraham  to  inherit  the  land  of  Canaan,  yet  He 
delayed  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  for  this  reason,  among 
others,  that  the  old  inhabitants  might  not  be  dispossessed  or 
destroyed  before  their  wickedness  had  reached  such  a  pitch  that 
their  destruction  would  be  felt  to  be  a  just  doom.  .  .  .  That  story 
in  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Genesis  explains  what  is  meant 
by  the  iniquity  of  the  Amorite.  .  .  .  Here  is  no  partiality  of  a 
merely  national  God  befriending  His  worshippers  at  the  expense 
of  others,  without  regard  to  justice ;  here,  rather,  is  a  Power 
making  for  righteousness  and  against  iniquity;  yea,  a  Power 
acting  with  a  beneficent  regard  to  the  good  of  humanity,  burying 
a  putrefying  carcase  out  of  sight  lest  it  should  taint  the  air" 
( Ch  ief  End  of  Revelation,  pp.  139-41 ). 

Ottley,  who  quotes  part  of  the  above,  adds :  "  After  all,  the 
Canaanites  were  put  under  the  ban,  '  not  for  false  belief,  but  for 
vile  actions'  (Westcott),  a  significant  circumstance  which  plainly 
implies  that  in  the  execution  of  His  righteous  purpose  Almighty 
God  is  guided  by  one  supreme  aim,  namely,  the  elevation  of 
human  character"  (Aspects  of  O.T.,  p.  179). 

On  the  general  subject  of  the  development  of  morality,  in- 
cluding this  particular  point,  in  addition  to  the  authorities  already 
cited,  the  remarks  of  Dr.  G.  T.  Ladd,  Doet.  of  Sac.  Scrip,  i. 
chop,  vi.,  and  of  Dr.  C.  A.  Briggs,  Introd.  to  Study  of  Holy  Scrip., 
pp.  641-45,  may  be  compared.  The  latter  writer,  however,  is  all 
t<«>  indiscriminating.  Such  exaggerations  as,  e.g.,  that  " there  is 
an  entire  absence  of  censure  of  the  sin  of  falsehood  until  after  the 
exile,"  and  that  even  the  prophets  "seem  to  know  nothing  of  the 
sin  of  speaking  lies  as  such  "  (p.  308),  are  beyond  the  range  of 
comment  (cf.  above,  p.  469).  Equally  groundless  is  the  asser- 
tion that  Jephthah's  sacrifice  of  his  daughter,  and  the  offering 
up  of  children  by  fire,  were  acceptable  to  God — "the  training 
was  true  and  faithful  for  the  time  "  (p.  642).  No  "  traditional " 
apologetics  is  so  shocking  as  this.  Not  thus  is  the  revelation 
in  which  Dr.  Briggs  believes  to  be  defended. 


INDEXES 


INDEXES 


BOOKS  AND  EDITIONS  CHIEFLY  REFERRED  TO 

(Unites  where  otherwise  specified,  references  are  to  the  editions  lure  noted. 
When  EngUA  translations  of  foreign  books  exist,  references  are  usually 
tothest.) 


ADDIS,  W.  E.  :— 

The  Documents  of  the  Hexateuch 
translated  and  arranged  in 
Chronological  Order,  with  In- 
troduction and  XotM,  Tol.  i. 
1892  ;  roL  iL  1898. 

BAKTHOKK,  P.  :— 
Beitrdgetur  Semiiischen  Religions- 

gesehiehU.      Der    QoU    ItraeFs 

und    Die    GotUr    Der    Heiden, 

1888. 
Die  Psalmen,  in  Nowack's  "  Hand- 

kommentar,"  1892. 
BAUDIKMN,  W.  W.  Graf.  :  — 
Die  Gesehiehte  des  AltUst.  J"W«Kr 

thums  unUrtueht,  1889. 
Art    "Priesta   and    LeriUa"  in 

Diet.  ofBible  (ir.). 
BKHNKTT,  W.  H.  j— 
A  Primer  of  Uu  Bible,  1897. 
The  Book  of  Joekua,  in   "Poly- 

chrome  Hi  Me,"  1899. 
Genesis,  in  "Onlurv  Hible.N 
Art*.   "  Moab,"  "  iioM^"  etc.,  in 


BLKRK,  P.  t— 

An  Introduction  to  the  Old  TtMn- 
ment,  2nd  edit   1865.     K.T.,  2 
vola,  Bohu'a  Lib.,  1875. 
B»rcF.,  A.  B.:— 

The  Chief  Bnd  «J  Revelalio*,  1881. 


BRUORCH,  H.  K.  :— 
History     of     Egypt     under     the 

Pharaohs,  E.T.,  2  vola.  1879. 
BCDDK,  EARL  :  — 

Religion   of  Israel  to  the  Exile, 

1899. 
Das  Alt*  Testament  und  die  Aus- 

yrabunyen,  2nd  edit  1903. 
BCDOK,  E.  A.  WALLIS  :— 
A   History  of  Egypt,  vols.    i.,  ii. 
1902  (8  vok  in  all),  in  "  Books 
on  Egypt  and  Chaldwa," 
Egyptian   Religion,   in    do.,   2nd 

edit  1900. 
BUHL,  P.:— 

Canon  and  Text  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, E.T.,  1892. 

CARTKNTER,  J.  E.  :  — 

See  below,  Oxford  HtxaUuch. 
CATR,  A.:— 

Tht  Inspiration  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment  Inductively  Contiderrd 
(Congregational  Union  Lectures), 


Con- 


t IIKVNK,  T.  K.:— 
Founders  of  Old  Testament  Criti- 

cism, 1893. 

The  Oriffin  mud  Kfli,jiov» 
tents  of  the  Psaltfr  (  lU 
Lecturea,  1889),  1891. 


544 


INDEXES 


Arts,  in  Encyc.  Biblica ;  Isaiah  in 

"Polychrome  Bible";  numerous 

other  works. 
COLENSO,  J.  W. : — 

The    Pentateuch     and     Book    of 

Joshua     Critically     Examined, 

Parts  i.-vii.  1862-79. 
Same,  People's  Edition,  Pts.  i.-v. 

abridged,  1  vol.  1871. 
CONDER,  0.  R.: — 

The  Bible  and  the  East,  1896,  and 

The  First  Bible,  1902. 
CORNILL,  C.  H.: — 

Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament, 

1891. 
History  of  the   People  of  Israel, 

1898. 

DAVIDSON,  A.  B.: — 

Old  Testament  Prophecy,  1903. 
The  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament, 

in  "Inter.  Theol.  Lib.,"  1904. 
Biblical     and    Literary    Essays, 

1902. 
The  Book  of  the  Prophet  Ezekiel, 

in  "  Cambridge   Bible  "  Series, 

1892. 
Arts,    in     Expositor,    and    arts. 

"Angel,"  "God,"  "Prophecy," 

etc. ,  in  Diet .  of  Bible. 
DE  WETTE,  W.  M.  L.:— 
Be  it  rage    zur   Einleitung   in    das 

Alte  Testament,  2  vols.  1806-7. 
Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament, 

1817,    3rd    edit    E.T.    (1843), 

Bust.,  1858. 
DELITZSCH,  F.: — 

New    Commentary  on    Genesis,    2 

vols.  E.T.  1888. 
Biblical      Commentary     on      the 

Psalms,      4th     edit,      revised. 

E.T.,  3  vols.  1887-89. 
Mesnianie    Prophecies    (Lectures), 

E.T.,  1880. 
Messianic  Prophecies  in  Historical 

Succession,  E.T.,  1891. 
Art*.    "  Pentateuch-kritische  Stu- 

dien,"  in  Luthardt's  Zeitschrift 

fiir     kirchliche      Witsenschaft, 

1880,  etc. 
DELITZSOH,  FRIED.: — 

Babel  and   Bible:   a    Lecture  on 

the  Fiijnificance  of  Assyriologiail 

Research    for    Religion,     E.T., 

1902  (a  large  literature  growing 

out  of  this). 


DILT.MANN,  A.: — " 

Commentaries  on  the  "Hexa- 
teuch,"  Die  Genesis,  4th  edit. 
1882 ;  Exodus  und  Leviticus 
(on  basis  of  Knobel),  1880; 
Numeri,  Deuteronomium  und 
Josua,  1886. 

Genesis  Critically  and  Exegetically 
Expounded,  E.T.  of  above,  2 
vols.  1897. 

Handbuch  der  Alttestamentlichcn 
Theologie,  1895. 

Art.  "  Chronik  "  in  Herzog's  Real- 

encyc.  (iii.). 
DRIVER,  S.  R.: — 

An  Introduction  to  the  Literature 
of  the  Old  Testament,  in  "  Inter. 
Theol.  Lib.,"  7th  edit.  1898 
(1st  edit.  1891). 

The  Book  of  Genesis,  with  Intro- 
duction and  Notes,  1904. 

A  Critical  and  Exegetical  Com- 
mentary on  Deuteronomy,  in 
"Inter.  Crit  Com."  3rd  edit 
1902. 

The  Book  of  Daniel,  with  Intro- 
duction and  Notes,  in  "  Cam- 
bridge Bible  "  Series,  1900. 

Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the 
Books  of  Samuel,  with  Introduc- 
tion, 1890. 

Other  works,  and  arts.  "Joseph," 

etc.,  in  Diet,  of  Bible. 
DUHM,  B.:— 

Die  Theologie  der  Propheten,  1875. 

EHKRS,  G.  M.: — 
Aegypten  und  die  Biicher  Moses, 

vol.  L  186'8. 
Art.    "Joseph"  in  Smith's  Diet. 

of  Bible  (2nd  edit.). 
E \\ALD,  G.  H.  A.:— 
History  of  Israel,  3rd  edit.  E.T., 

8  vols.  vol.  i.  1867. 
Prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  2nd 

edit  E.T.,  5  vols.  vol.  L  1875. 

FRIPP,  E.  T.:— 

The  Composition  of  Iht  Book  of 
Genesis,  with  Enylish  Text  and 
Analysis,  1892. 

GlESBBRKCHT,  F.: — 

Die  Berufsgabung  der  Alttesta- 
mentlichen  Propheten,  1897. 


INDEXES 


545 


GRAF,  K.  H.:— 

Die     (JesfhifMifhen    BQcher    da 

Alien  ratame.Ua,  I860. 
GRAY,  O.  B.:— 
Numbers,  in  "Inter.  Crit,  Com.," 

L9M, 
The  Divine  Discipline  of  Israel, 

1900. 
Other  works,  and  arts,  in  Sxfxm- 

tor,  etc. 
GRKRN,  W.  H.:— 

MUM*  and  the  Prophets,  1883. 

The  Hebrew  feasts,  1886. 

The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pen- 

tateuch, 1895. 
The  Unity  of  the  Book  of  Genesis, 

1895. 
GUNK  EL,  H.:— 

Sehdpfung   und    Chaos  in    Until 

und  Bndzeit,  1895. 
Genesis,  ubersetzl   und  erklart,  in 

"  Huiulkommentar,"  1901. 
The    Introduction    to    this    work 

published  separately  under  the 

title,  Die,  Sagen  der  Genesis. 
Israel  und  Babylonian,  1903. 
Zum  Religionsgeschichtlichsn  /'./•- 

itandniss  dts  Neuen  Testaments, 

1903. 

HRNOSTKNBERO,  E.  W.:— 

l>i*sf  rial  ions  on  the  Gmuinenrss 
of  the  Pentateuch,  E.T.,  2  vols. 
1847. 

HII.PRECHT,  H.  V.:— 
Explorations     in     Bible     Lands 
during  Ike  Nineteenth  Century, 
1903. 
HoMUKI.,  F.  :  — 

The  Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition  as 
illustrated  ty  the  Monuments, 
E.T.,  1897. 

Arts.  "Babylonia,  "etc.,  in  Diet. 
of  Bible;  arta.  in  .FfyMflny 
1'imrs,  etc. 

VAK  HpuKACxRR,  A.:— 
Le  Li**  du  CulU  dans  la  Ugisla- 

Han  rUurlU  del  Hilrtux.  1894. 
LA  Saeerdoes  LMtique  dans  la  Lot 
*  dam»  CHistairt  des  lltbrtux, 
1899. 


,  A.:  — 

Dot  AUt  Testament  m  Liehte  des 
alUn  Orients,  1904. 

35 


JOHNS,  C.  H.  W.:— 

The  Oldest  Code  of  Lavs  in  the 
World;  the  Code  of  Law*  pro- 
mulgated by  Hammurabi,  King 
of  Babylon,  2285-2242  B.C., 
1903. 

Assyrian  Deeds  and  Documents, 
3  vols.  (1898,  1901). 

Art.  "  Code  of  Hammurabi "  in 
Diet,  of  Bible  (Extra  Vol.),  etc. 

KAUTZSCH,  E.: — 
An  Outline  of  the  History  of  the 

Literature  of  the  Old  Testament, 

E.T.,  1898. 
Die  Bleibende  Bedcutung  des  Allen 

Testaments,  1903. 
Die  Genesis  mit  Ausserer   Unter- 

scheiduny   der    QutlUnsthriften 

(by  Kantzsch  and  Socin),  1888. 
Art.  "  Religion  of  Israel "  in  Diet. 

of  Bible  (Extra  Vol.). 
KIWJ,  L.  W.:— 
Babylonian  Religion,  in   "  Books 

on  Egypt  and  Chaldtea,"  1899. 
K i I:K PATRICK,  A.  F.:— 

The  Books  of  Samuel,  in  "Cam- 
bridge Bible"  Series,  2  vols., 

1880-82. 

The  Book  of  Psalms,  trith  Intro- 
duction and  Notes,  in  do., 

1902. 
The  Divine  Library    of  the  Old 

Testament,  1896. 
Other  works. 
KITTKL,  R.: — 
A  History  of  the  Hebrews,  2  vols., 

1888,  1892  ;  E.T.  1895. 
The  Babylonian   Excavations  and 

Early  Bible  History,  £T.  1903. 
K r.osTKRMAXW,  A.:— 
Der  Pentateuch,  1893. 
QmMAtt  4*  Volkrs  Israel,  1 896. 
Arts,  in  Neue  KirthlicheZeitvhr.jl 

(1897),  and  art.  "Chronik"in 

Hauck's  Realencye.  (iv.). 
K..III.RE,  A.:— 
Lchrbuch  der  Biblisehen  Gesehichte 

Alten  Testaments,  vol.  i. 

vol.  ii.  1884  ;  vol.  Hi  1892. 
Art     "Abraham"     in     Hauck's 

Aalfneye,  (L),  etc. 
KOM.;,  E.:— 
SMeitung  in  das  Alts  Testament, 

IMS, 


546 


INDEXES 


Die  ffauptpn/bleme  der  altisraeliti- 

xchcii  Religionsgeschichte,  1884. 
Xeueste    Prinzipien    der   alttesta- 

mcntlichen  Kritik,  1902. 
Bibel  und  Babel,  1902. 
Art.   "  Judges "  in  Diet,  of  Bible, 

etc. 
KUENEN,  A.: — 

The    Prophets    and    Prophecy    in 

Israel,  E.T.,  1877. 
The  lieligion  of  Israel  to  the  Fall  of 

the  Jewish  State,  E.T.,  3  vols. 

1882-83. 
National  Religions  and  Universal 

Religions     (Hibbert    Lectures), 

1882. 
The  Origin  and  Composition  of  the 

Hexateuch,  E.T.,  1886. 

LADD,  G.  T.:— 

The  Doctrine  of  Sacred  Scripture, 
2  vols.  1883. 

McFADYEN,  J.  E.  :— 

The  Messages  of  Hie  Prophetic  and 

Priestly  Historians,  1901. 
MOORB,  G.  F.:— 
Judges,  in   "Inter.   Grit.  Com.," 

1895. 
MOZLEY,  J.  B. : — 

Ruling  Ideas  in  Early  Ages,  1877. 

OEHLEE,  G.  F.:— 

Theology  of   the    Old    Testament, 

E.T.,  2  vols.  1874. 
OKTTLI,  S.: — 

Das  Deuteronomium  und  die  Bucher 

Josua  und  Richtcr,  in  Strack  and 

Zockler's  "  Kurzgefasster  Kom- 

mentar,"  1893. 
Der  Kampf  um  Bibel  und  Babel, 

1903. 
VON  OUELU,  C.: — 

The  Old  Testament  Prophecy  of  the 

Consummation  of  God's  Kingdom, 

E.T.,  1885. 
The  Twelve  Minor  Prophets,  E.T., 

1893. 
Commentaries  on  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 

etc. 
OTTLEY,  E.  L.: — 

Aspect*    of    the    Old     Testament 

(Bampton  Lectures),  1897. 
A   Short  History  of  the  Hebrews, 

1901. 


OXFORD  "  HEXATETTCH  "  : — 

The  Hexateuch  according  to  the 
Revised  Version.,  arranged  in  its 
Constituent  Documents  by  Mem- 
bers of  the  Society  of  Historical 
Theology,  Oxford.  Edited,  with 
Introduction,  etc.,  by  J.  Estlin 
Carpenter,  M.A.,andG.Harford- 
Battersby,  M.A.  (Mr.  Carpenter 
writes  the  Introduction),  1900. 

PKROWNE,  J.  J.  S.:— 

The  Book  of  Psalms,  2  vols.,  2nd 

edit.  1870. 
PETERS,  J.  P.: — 

Nippur,  2  vols.  1897. 
PETRIE,  W.  M.  FLINDERS  : — 

A  History  of  Egypt,  vol.  i.  1894  ; 

vol.  ii.  1896. 

Ten  Years'  Digging  in  Egypt,  1893. 
Other  works,  reports,  and  articles. 
PINCHES,  TH.  C.  :— 

The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of 
the  Historical  Records  and  Le- 
gends of  Assyria  and  Babylonia, 
1902. 

PUSEY,  E.  B.:— 

Daniel  the  Prophet,  2nd  edit. 
1868. 

REUSS,  E.: — 

Geschichte   der   heiligen    Schriften 
Alien  Testaments,  2nd  edit.  1890. 
L'Histoire  sainte  et  la  Loi,  1879. 
RIKHM,  D.  E.:— 

Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament, 

2  vols.  1889-90. 

Messianic  Prophecy,  E.T.,  1876. 
ROBERTSON,  J.: — 

The    Early    Religion     of    Israel 

(Baird  Lecture),  1892. 
The  Poetry  and  the  Religion  of  tlie 

Psalms  (Croall  Lectures),  1898. 
RYLE,  H.  E.:— 

The  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament, 

1892. 

Other  works ;    arts,    in    Diet,   of 
Bible. 

SAYCE,  A.  H.t — 

Fresh    Light,   from    the    Ancient 

Monuments. 
The  "Higher  Criticism"  and  the 

Verdict  of  the  Monuments,  1894. 
Early  Israel  and  the  Surrounding 

Nation*,  1899. 


INDEXES 


547 


Monument  Facts  and  Higher  Critical 

Fancies,  1904. 

Numerous    other  works    and    ar- 
ticles. 
SCHRADKR,  E.: — 

The    Cuneiform    Inscription*  and 

the    Old    Testament,  2nd    edit. 

E.T.,2vols.,  1885,  1888. 
>•  in  LTZ,  H.: — 
Old  Testament  Theology,  4th  edit 

E.T.,  2yols.  1892. 
SMEND,  E.: — 

Lehrbuch    der    Alttestamentlichen 

Xeliffionsgeschichte,  1893. 
Earlier  works  and  articles. 
SMITH,  W.  R.:— 

The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish 

Church,    2nd    edit    1892    (1st 

edit.  1881). 
The  Prophets  of  Israel,  2nd  edit 

1895  (1st  edit  1882). 
Thf  Religion  of  the  Semites,  1889. 
Ki,i*hip  and  Marriage  in  Early 

Arabia,  1885. 
Other  works  and  articles. 
SMITH,  H.  P.:— 

The  Books  of  Samuel,  in  "  Inter. 

Crit  Com.,"  1899. 
Old  Testament  History,  in  "  Inter. 

Theol.  Lib.,"  1903. 
SMITH,  G.  A.:  — 

Modern  Criticism  and  the.  Preaching 

of    the    Old    Testament    (Yale 

Lectures).  1901. 


STADK,  B.: — 

(ieschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  rol.  i. 

1887  (1st  ed.  1881). 
STRACK,  H.  L.: — 

Die  Bucher  Genesis,  Exodus,  Levi- 
ticus, und  Numeri,  in  "  Kurtz- 
gefasster  Kommentar,"  1892. 

EiiUeitung  in  das  Alte  Testament, 

1898. 
THATCHKR,  G.  W.:— 

Judges   and   Ruth,  in   "Century 

Bible." 
TOM  KINS,  H.  G.: — 

Abraham  and  his  Age,  1897. 

The  L\fe  and  Times  of  Joseph,  2nd 

edit.  1893. 
WKLLHAUBKN,  J. : — 

Prolegomena  to  the  History  of 
Israel,  with  reprint  of  article 
"Israel"  from  Eney.  Brit. 
(cited  Hist,  of  Israel),  1885. 

Israelitische  und  Judische  Qe~ 
schichte,  3rd  edit  1897. 

Die    Composition    des   Hexateuch, 

3rd  edit.  1899. 
WKSTCOTT,  B.  F. : — 

The  Bible  in  the  Church,  4th  edit 

1875. 
WKSTI-HAL,  A.: — 

Les  Sources  du  Pentateuque,  voL  i. 

1888  ;  voL  ii.  1892. 
WlNCKLER,  H.: — 

The  TM-el-Amarna-LeUers,  1896. 

Die  Babylonisehe  Kultur  in  ihren 

Beziehungen  xur  unsrigen,  1902. 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES  REFERRED  TO 
(Verses  are  in  parentheses:  contiguous  verses  are  sometimes  grouped.) 


GENESIS. 

i.-ii.  (3) ;  197,  227,  236,  337,  342, 

346,  403,  406-7. 
ii.-iii.  226-7,  347. 
ii.  (4)-iv.  197,  212,  346,  403-4. 
i.  277,  467  (26-7);  347  (31). 
ii.  227  (5-21). 
iii.    221,    495;    37    (15);    508    (16, 

17);  125  (22). 
iv.   114,  227  (1);    156  (3,  4);    508 

(7);    524  (8);    133   (4,    16);    508 

(11-26);   350    (16-24);    399   (16, 

17);  223,  227  (25-6). 
v.    197,    226,    347;    337    (1);    349 

(32). 

vi.-ix.  342,  347;  vii.,  viii.  348. 
vi.  217  (1-4);    337  (7);    197,   347- 

8  (5-22);  338  (13,  17). 
vii.  112  (2,   8);  197   (11-16);  348- 

9-50  (1-23). 
viii.   348-50  (1-20);   41,    112,    156 

(20,  21). 
ix.  337;  197   (1-18);  314   (4);  338, 

374  (11,  15);   349,  374  (19,  20); 

227,  495  (26);  350,  508,  529  (18- 

27). 
x.   128,  351;  349  (1);  91  (6,  13  ff.); 

351,  400  (6-12);   529-30   (6-15); 

231  (16);  232  (18). 
xi.  226,  402;   197,  350,  508  (1-9); 

351  (27-32);  108  (31). 
xii.   197,  239,  361,  413;  33,  37  (3); 

108,    351    (4-6);    136,   209,    232, 

370  (6);  210  (8);  221,  236,  238 

(10-20);  238-9,  351  (13,  17). 
xiii.  109,  197;  238  (1);  351  (6,  11, 

12);  232,  370  (7);  136  (18). 
xiv.  107-8-9,   217,   337,   339,   351, 

413,   531;    370    (5-7);    136,    231 

'13);  365  (14);  275  (20). 


GENESIS — continued. 

xv.  217;  230,  233  (!);  495  (2,  8); 

337  (14);  232,  470  (16);  231  (21). 
xvi.  344;   352  (1-17);   236   (4-14); 

93  (11,  12);  343,  361  (15,  16). 
xvii.,  xviii.  362. 
xviii.-xx.  352. 
xvii.  107,     197,    337,    341-2;    44, 

114,   352   (1);    373    (8-19);    352 

(18). 
xviii.  362;    136   (1);    130   (14);   37, 

86    (18,    19);    41,    44,    125    (25); 

504  (26);  31,  32,  495  (27). 
xix.    113    (1,    15);    338,    343,    352 

(29);  115  (30);  105  (31  ff.). 
xx.   197,  212,  217,  219,  236,  238- 

9,    342,    361;   230   (1);   233   (3); 

109,  223,  504  (13);  231  (14,  17); 

238-9  (18). 
xxi.  197,  217,  361;  219,  252  (1-7); 

231,    236-7     (9-21);     233    (12); 

113,    234    (17);    124    (22);     136 

(25,  30  ff.);  210  (33). 
xxii.   140,   210,   220;  233   (1);    113, 

230,  233  (1-20);  524  (13);  37  (18); 

210  (19). 

xxiii.  109,  197,  336-7,  342,  353. 
xxiv.-xxxiv.  495. 
xxiv.  227,    353;    495    (3-27);    125 

(3);  108  (4,  7,  10);  338  (10);  136 

(16);  230  (62). 
xxv.   108   (7-10);    197   (7-17);   236 

(9);  342  (19,  20,  26). 
xxvi.  238;  239  (1);  236,  238  (2-12); 

254    (5);    361    (6    ff.);    13fi,    238 
(15,   18,   19);  233  (24);   124  (27, 

28);  236  (33);  342  (34,  35). 
xxvii.  71,  493;  177(7);  209(10  ff.); 


93,    209,    370    (40); 
342,  353  (46  ff.). 


108    (43); 


548 


INDEXES 


549 


GBKTSTS—  rontinittd. 

zzTiii.  71;    342,    353    (1-9);     113, 

209-10,  220,  234-6,  361  (10  ff.); 

209  (13);   130  (15  ff.);  138,  211, 

222,  236,  275  (17-22). 
xxix.  231,  342,  353  (24,  29). 
xxx.  71;  231  (3). 
xxxi.  113,    361    (11-13);    342,    353 

(18);  251  (14,   15,  23);   124,   142 

(19-35);      40.     231  (30-4);     230 

(37);  138  (45-7). 
xxxii.  305    (4.    5,     10);    210,    232 

(24  ff.);  209  (30  ft.);  251  (48-50). 
xxxiii.  230. 
xxxiv.  251;    210,    236,    342,    353; 

471  (7,  31). 
xxxv.  493,    495;    124,    142   (2,    4); 

136,    233,    236,    342,    353,    361, 

373    (7-15);    232    (10,    21);    343 

(24);  108  (28.  29). 
xxxvi.  373  (39). 
xxxvii.  71,  343  (2);    210(14);    232 

(3,  34);  233  (14-20);  237  (27,  28, 

36). 
xxxviii.    366,     470;      234   (10-22); 

367  (20);  211  (22);  471  (24). 
xxxix.  222;  237  (1);   230(7);  222- 

3,  470  (9). 

xL  230  (I);  223  (8).     xL-xliii.  218. 
xli.  124,  223  (16-52);  343,  353,  493 

(46). 

xliii.  114  (14);  222  (29). 
xliv.  222  (16). 

xlv.  218,  222;  493  (fi):  232  (27,  28). 
xlri.  366;  156  (1);  23'2-3  (1,  2);  343 

(6  ft);  353  (8-27);  365  (15);  276 

(27). 

xlvii.  353  (6-11);  493  (9);  415  (17). 
xlviii.  230  (1);  373  (2);  353  (3-7); 

113  (15-16);  232  (22). 
xlix.   138  (4);  353  (1.  12.  13.  29  ff.); 

368  (3);  524  (14);  495  (18);  37 
(19);  114  (25);  108  (28-33). 

1.  218;  108  (12,  13,  15). 


EXODUS. 

i.  337.  354  (7  ff.);  276-7  (5,   14); 

419,  533  (11). 
ii.  230-1,     423    (5ff.);     129.     354 

(25-6). 
Hi.  212.    222,    224.    226;     231   (1); 

113  (2.  5.  6);  129.  232  (13-16). 
iv.  224,  355  (4  ff.);  231    (27):   356 

(30). 


Kx  o  nus —  roniin  tied. 

v.  423;    356  (1);    80  (6,    14);    470 

(16  ff.). 
vi.  212,    226,    354;    336,    340,    361 

(2ff.);  114  (3);  177  (12,  30). 
vii.-xii.  354. 

vii.  365  (8  ff.);  73  (26-7). 
viii.  337,  366-6  (1-7). 
ix.  355(10);  356(27). 
x.  356(3  ff.).     xi.  356(10). 
xii.  301,    314,    320;    124,    310,    356 

(12);  366  (12,  31  ff.). 
xiii.   140    (2,    11,    12);    254    (3-6); 

222(17-19);  113  (21). 
xiv.  113(19-24). 

xv.  101;   114.  123-4(11);  254(26). 
xvi.  404  (22-30).     xvii.  231  (6). 
xviii.  152,  222,  278;  404  (16  ff.). 
xix.  231 ;  116,  125,  254  (3-6). 
xx.-xxiii.  99,  247-8. 
xxi.-xxii.  (14).  520. 
xxi.-xxiii.  (231). 
xx.  40,    102,    124,    134,   268   (2-6); 

254  (2-17);  231   (10);   373.  404, 

407    (11);    134    (23);    155,    157, 

175-6,  273,  503  (24- _>•,). 
xxi.  276,  515  (1-7);  470,  516  (7  ff.); 

231  (21-23). 
xxii.   155.    470,    475    (14-19);    134, 

968  (18-21);  500  (29). 
xxiii.  40    (4);    475-6.    305    (9-12); 

134,   176,  268  (13-33);  619  (16); 

157,  171.  521  (18.  19);  113  (20); 

264(20-3);  125,139(24);  124(32). 
xxiv.  160;    231  (2,  4,  16);   80,  510 

(4-8);  354  (9). 
xxv.-xxxi.  528. 
xxv.-xxxvii.  (19),  170. 
xxv.   160;    161   (10  ff.);    137   (21); 

170  (22). 

xx  vii.  161  (1  ff.);  171  (20,  21). 
xxviii.-xxxi.  170.     xxviil  190  (6). 
xxix.  170  (42,  43).    xxx.  296  ( 1 1-16). 
xxxi.  310  (13.  14);  373  (17). 
xxxii.   122,  142.  146,211.  276.602; 

48  (15);  143  (4). 
xxxiii.  3-5  (167);  231    (6);    166-8. 

170  (7);  161  (9). 

xxxiv.-xl.  336.  xxxv.-xxxix.  528. 
xxxiv.  476  (6,  7);  254  (10-26);  163 

(12-26);  137  (13);  268  (14-17); 

320  (18-26);  619  (22);  167  (30). 
xxxviL  277  (1).  xxxviii.  172  (8). 
xl.  167  (1).  161,  167,  169-70  (34- 

37). 


550 


INDEXES 


LEVITICUS. 

i.  523;   157  (2,  3). 

iii.  173(1  ff.);  314(17).     iv.  523. 

vii.     172    (16);     314    (26-7);     173 

(28  ff.). 

ix.  169  (17);  192  (5). 
x.  354  (1  ff.);  310  (9,  10). 
xi.  337;  314-5  (4-20);  310  (43-5). 
xiii.-xv.  314-15. 
xv.   101;  114,  123,  129(11). 
xvii.-xxvi.   160,  308,  324,  328,  507. 
xvii.  176,    297,    311    (1-4);    314- 

15  (1-3,  23-25);  276,  615-16  (15). 
xviii.-xx.  310. 

xviii.  314-15  (21  ff.);  470  (24  ff.). 
xix.  123  (4);  512  (13,  16,  18);  311, 

322   (21,   22);   314-15   (26,    31); 

102  (36). 
xx.  512  (10). 
xxi.-xxii.  310. 

xxi.  183  (10);  311  (1,  17,  21,  etc.). 
xxii.  102  (33). 
xxiii.  320-2,   521   (4ff.);  324  (20); 

311  (27-32);  102  (43). 
xxiv.  328. 
xxv.   305,   314  (2  ff.);  311   (8  ff.); 

304,  311  (22,  32-3);  102  (55). 
xxvi.    254,    309-10,    328,    339-40; 

179  (30);  305  (34-5). 


NUMBERS. 

i.   186,  191-2  (47  ff.). 

iii.  186  (5  ff.);  191  (6,  31);  367  (43). 

iv.  191-2  (9-14);  163  (15,  19);  298, 

504  (23-35). 
viii.    186   (5ff.);     298,     504   (24); 

191-2  (26). 
i\.    321  (4,  5);     504  (6-12);     162, 

170  (15-23). 
x.   179(16-20);  129(29);  137,161- 

2-9  (33-36). 
\i.-xii.   170. 
xi.   169    (1,    10,    16);    166    (16  ff.); 

81.  168,  230,  451  (24-32). 
xii.   166,  168-9  (4ff.,  14,  15). 
xiii.  356;  277-80  (1-29);  230  (29); 

509  (33). 
xiv.  279,    356;    161,    169    (10-14); 

281  (25);  162,  168  (44). 
xv.  364  (2ff.);  161  (6);  172  (8-10); 

476  (30-1);  310  (37-41). 
xvi.  206,     236,     280,     358-9,     361 

(2-11,    12-15);    191-2    (9);    168, 

318,  476  (24-27). 


XUMBIRS — continued. 

xviii.  191  (2);  317,  515  (3,  4);  188, 

274-5,   298,    314-5,    515   (20-26, 

21-31). 
xix.   192  (17). 
xx.  280-1,    359    (Iff.);    278    (2  ff., 

10,   12);   161   (6);  276  (12);  373 

(14). 
xxi.   142  (8,   9);    132,    179   (22  ff.); 

121  (29). 
xxii.   179  (41). 
xxiii.  230(15);  168(21). 
xxiv.  168  (2). 
xxvi.  367;  279  (65). 
xxvii.  278(12,  13);  276(13ff.). 
xxviii.  320-1,  521(16ff.). 
xxix.  529  (39). 
xxxi.   167(9);  161(15). 
xxxii.  357  (7  ff.);  279,358(12);  282 

(19). 

xxxiii.  280-1;  81  (2);  179  (52). 
xxxv.  185  (2,  6,  8);  511  (11,   15); 

512  (11-34);  183  (25,  28). 


DEUTERONOMY. 

i.-iv.  248,  252-3,  276,  339,  510. 

i.-iii.  268. 

i.-iv.  (9),  510. 

i.  282  (1,  5);  97,  373  (8);  278  (9  ff.); 

276-9  (22-3,  37-8). 
ii.  279  (1,  2);  251,  372,  529-30 

(10-12,  20-23). 
iii.  276,  278,  282  (20-27). 
iv.  46  (6-8,  32-35);  177,  510  (10  ff.); 

268  (19);  276,  278  (21);  101, 

277,  337,  407  (32,  34);  373 

(32,  37);  281-2  (41-49);  511 

(42). 

v.-xi.  248,  252-3. 
v.  251,  276,  373;  510  (2);  102,  153 

(6,  15). 

vi.  73  (7,  20-5);  97  (10). 
vii.  269  (1,  2);  267  (5,  25);  517 

(6);  326  (13). 
viii.  325  (7-20). 
ix.  276;  279  (22  ff.);  177(25). 
x.  137,  182,  187,  192,  277,  279 

(1-6);  280  (6,  7);  162,  186-7  (8); 

373  (16);  276  (22). 
xi.  277  (4);  280  (6);  177  (10,  11); 

75  (19);  325  (14-16);  504  (24); 

510  (28);  282  (30). 
xii.-xxvi.  248,  250,  252-3,  263, 

268,  276. 


INDEXES 


55' 


DBUTIROXOMT-  continued, 

xii.  270.  325;  125.  267-8,  604  (2  ff.); 

•J7»    if.);    1.V7.    170.    187-8.   274. 
'     297,  314  (7-20);  470  (29  IT.). 
xiii.  270.  476. 
xiv.  337;  517  (2);  262,  276,   311, 

314.  515  (3-21). 
xv.    314.    170  (Iff.);     476  (7ff.); 

187-8    (11);     516    (12);    276-6, 

515  (19.  20). 
xvi.  314,  320  (1-17);  101  (3,  6,  12); 

621  (5-7);  324  (8);  137  (21). 
XMI.  .'U8,   476  (2-7);  456  (10  ff.); 

191-2,  325  (12);  262,  264,    185 

(9.   18);  314.  515  (14  ff.). 
xviii.  185,  187,  191.  270.  275,  314, 

316.  515-6.  518  (1-8);  267  (9  ff.); 

325  (18);  40  (9-14). 
xix.  611(2);  612(5). 
xx.  269(1-20). 
xxi.  191(5);  470(10.  14);  368(15, 

17). 
xxii.  476    (1-4);    268    (6-8);    306 

(8.  12);  470-1  (13-30);  314  (30). 
xxiiL  269  (2-9);  470  (17). 
xxiT.  185,  262.  518  (8);  475  (14- 

22,  etc.). 

xxv.  325(13-16.  etc.);  269(17-19). 
xxvi.  181    (5);    277    (6);    354    (7); 

274-5  (12-15);  617  (18). 
x  xvii.-xxxiv.  51 1.  xxix.-xxxiv.  248. 
xxvii.  214;  263  (3);    175,   273  (5- 

7):  81  (8);  612  (25). 
xxviii.  252-3:     510     (1-45);     185 

(9);  132  (36,  64);  325  (68). 
xxix.    510  (1-4);     374  (13);     325 

(23). 
xxx.  34   (6);    186-7    (8);    49    (10- 

16);  610  (11-20). 
xxxi.  266   (9);   81.    162.    169.   248. 

202,    283    (9.    19.    24-26);    161. 

166.    170.    251,    283-4    (14.    15, 

23);  618  (14). 
xxxii.   123    (21);    248,    276.     278 

(48-62). 

xxxiii.  248;  262(1);  130(2). 
xzziv.  248,  251. 

JOSHUA. 

i.-xii.  215.     iii..  iv.  162-3.  185.  240. 

iii.-vi.  170. 

i.  425(4);  49.  370  (7.  8). 

ii.  241  (9.  24). 

iii.  137(6);  143(7). 


JOSHUA — continued . 

iv.  162(7,9.  18). 

v.  321(10.  11). 

vii.  476(iOff.). 

vii..   Hi-j  (-J3);    81,    214,    370.    379 

(30-:}.-.). 

x.  241-2(7  ff.). 

xi.  241(1-14.  15  ff.).     xii.  241. 
xiii.  240-1  (1.  2.  13).     xiv.  185(4). 
XT.  268    (10);    81     (15,    49);    230 

(19);  240  (13-19,  63). 
xvi.  215  (1-3);  240,  600  (10). 
xvii.  240(1211.). 
xviii.  240  (2  ff.);  380(9). 
xx.  512  (3-6). 
xxi.  186;    185(8). 
xxii.  176,215(9-34).     xxiii.  215. 
xxiv.  101,  215-6;    101  (4-7);   241, 

243  (11,   18);   138,  370  (26,  27); 

230  (29,  32);  182  (33). 


JUDOIS. 

i.  240;    171  (1);    384  (7);  242  (8); 

81,    143  (11.    14);    130  (19,  22); 

380-1  (21,  29);  425  (26). 
ii.   177,466(1-5). 
iii.  143(7);  241  (8  ff.,  12  ff.). 
iv.  241;  474  (4-6). 
v.  76,   129  ff.,    131,   143;  383  (15- 

17). 
vi.  384;    241    (1  ff.);    256    (7-10); 

176  (18-26);    177  (24,  26);    143 

(28-32). 
vii.  384. 
viii.  374  (14);    177  (17);    237  (24); 

141.  143(27):  81(34). 
ix.  136(37);  384(24,  66). 
x.   143  (6);  241.  255  (6-16). 
xi.   130  (11);  177  (12);  121,  131  ff. 

(24);  470  (27);  140  (30-40). 
xiii.  241  (1  ff.);  176  (16). 
xvii.-xviii.  143. 
xvii.  40;   382   (2-4);    142   (3.    14); 

144,  177  (3-6);  381-2  (6,  12). 
xviii.  381-2;    142.     144    (14.    20); 

122.  143.  145.  170.  385  (29-31). 
xix.-xxi.  68,  383,  888. 
xix.  381  (1  ff.);    170(18);    384(23- 

4.30). 
xx.  384    (6ff.);    162,    170-1,    177, 

182,  191  (18.  23.  26-28). 
xxi.  386  '(1-W);    177   (2-4);    171, 

321  (19). 
xx.i.  177. 


552 


INDEXES 


1  SAMTTKL. 

i.-ii.  306.     i.-iii.  172,  386. 

iv.-vii.  386-7. 

i.   172  (3,  7,  9,  21,  25). 

ii.  189    (11,    18);    171-2    (14-22); 

255  (17-36);  182,  190  (27-36). 
iii.    189    (1,    15);    162,    171-2   (3); 

326  (14);  171,  451  (19-21). 
iv.   189(1);  137,  161-2-3,  171  (3-5). 
vi.  323  (3);  162-3,  189  (15). 
vii.    58,    255,    384;    178    (1);    162, 

164  (1,  2);  179,  386  (2-17);  504 

(16). 

viii.  255,  386;  164(2);  505(17,  18). 
ix.-x.  180,  386.     ix.  451  (9). 
x.  255(11-27);  386(16,  17-25). 
xi.,  xii.,  xiii.  (2>-xiv.  (46),  xv.  386. 
xv.  140(33),  179,  504(22);  190(27). 
xvi.  441  (7).     xvii.  441. 
xviii.  190(4);  441  (5,  7,  14-16). 
xix.  58  (18-24).     xx.  505  (23-6). 
xxi.  171,  178,  442;  179,  504  (1-6). 
xxii.  442  (2);  306  (18). 
xxiii.  442;  190  (6,  9);  443  (7   ff.); 

177  (18). 

xxiv.  443  (2  ff.);  190  (5,  12). 
xxv.  442  (16,  16). 
xxvi.,  xxvii.,  xxix.  443. 
xxvi.  121,  131  ff.  (19). 
xxx.  504(31).     xxxi.  528. 
xxxv.   190(7). 

2  SAMUEL. 

ii.  443 (Iff.,  4,  11). 

v.  443;  242(6-8). 

vi.  162,  386,  444;  137,  162  (2,  7); 

190  (14);  183-4  (17,  18). 
vii.  37,  444,  528;  166  (6). 
viii.  444.  528;  183(18). 
ix.-xx.  386.     xi.  444. 
xii.  445(10-12). 
xiii.  445(14);  190(18). 
xx.   183,  189,  505  (23-6). 
xxi.  140(1-14).    xxii.  446;  190(18). 
xxiii.  390(8). 
xxiv.  439(1);  385,390(9);  176(18). 

1  KINDS. 

i.  501  (9).     ii.  182  (26,  27,  35). 

iii.   177,     179   (2);    173,    175,     183 

(4,  5);  162  (15). 
iv.  505-6;  183(5);  390(26). 
vi.  162  (19);  323  (20,  23). 


1  KINGS— continued. 

vii.   145  (29);  323  (48). 

viii.  250,  283,  380;  162,  170  (1-16); 

172-3,  183,  185,  370  (4  ff.);  164 

(6);  321  (2,  65-6);  184  (3,  6,  10); 

102    (12    ff.);  101    (16,    51-53); 

183  (62-64). 
ix.  416,    500    (16,    24);  305,    321, 

323  (25). 

x.  390(22);  425,515(26-9). 
xi.  317;  144,  515  (1-5);  416  (1,  18, 

21,  40);   180  (7,  8);    146  (29  ff.); 

145  (40). 

xii.   145  (1-3);  321  (9);  143  (28). 
xiii.  146  (2).     xv.  183  (6). 
xvi.  146  (1,  2);  146,  500(30-4). 
xviii.  175  (31).     xx.  426  (34). 
xxi.   147  (21-24). 
xxii.  58;  426(1);  390(49). 

2  KINGS. 

i.  426(1).     ii.  146(23). 

iii.  426(4). 

v.  130(15ff.);  132(18). 

vii.  425  (6).     viii.  137  (9). 

xii.  181-2(10);  322(16). 

xiv.  250,  283,  370  (5,  6).     xv.  427. 

xvii.  255;  427(1-6). 

xviii.  143, 257, 500  (4  ff.);  427(13ff.); 

416  (21). 

xix.  257;  427  (9,  37). 
xxii.  256-7;  514;  181(4,  8). 
xxiii.  259;  181  (4);  257  (2,  24,  25); 

139,  267,  270  (4-12);  321  (21-3). 
xxiv.  457(1). 

1  CHRONICLES. 

vi.  504  (8,  53).     viii.  486  (1-32). 
ix.  487  (1).     x.  528  (1-12). 
xi.  389,  390  (11).     xii.  389. 
xv.  388  ff.;  191-2(2);  183(27). 
xvi.   183  (2);    185,    191-2   (4,    37); 

450    (7-36);     528    (8-33);      173 

(39,  40). 

xvii.  528;  166  (5).    xviii.  505  (5-18). 
xxiii.-xxviii.  368. 
xxiii.   293,    299,    388-9;    440   (5); 

298,  504  (24,  27);  192  (30). 
xxiv.   182,  504  (3).     xxv.  440. 
xxvii.  504  (17). 
xxviii.   388. 

xxix.   185(5ff.);  387(29). 
xxx.  504  (17,  19). 


lM)F\i:s 


553 


2  CHBOHICLM. 

i.  173  (3).     iv.  323  (19) 

v.  173.  185  (5);  388  (4,  5,  11-14). 

vi.  183  (3,  12);  178  (5,  6). 

vii.   183  (4  ff.). 

viii.  305.320(13). 

ix.  528(1-12);  390(21,25). 

xii.  426. 

xiii.  390(3.  17);  388  (4  ff.). 

xx.  390(36). 

xxiii.  388;  185  (18).    XXT.  370  (4  ff.). 

xxix.  -xxx.  388. 

xxix.  191-2(11);  179(34). 

xxx.  321;  179(17,  19);  185(27). 

xxxiii.  427  (11-13). 

xxxiv.  257.   388;    321  (1    ff.);    521 

(7-9). 
xxxvi.  457  (6  ff.). 

ElRi. 

i.  504  (4). 

ii.  298.  439;  299.  439  (41  ff.). 

iii.  322  (4);   297-8  (2  ff..  8);    439 

(10.  11). 

vi.  370(18);  322(22). 
vii.  247;  295  (6,  14);  439  (7.  24). 
viii.  298(15ff.). 

NXHKMIAH. 

vi.  296(10-19). 

viii.  247,  290,  296;   295  (1,   2-8); 

322  (11  ff.). 
ix.  291. 

x.  439  (28,  29);  298  (32,  39). 
xi  439.  448  (22,  23). 
xii.  192,  439  (44-7). 
xiii.  370  (I);  298  (5);  296  (10  ff.); 

524  (28  ff.). 

JOB. 

i.  190  (20).     ii.  190  (12). 

vii.  439  (17,  18).     xiii.  230  (11). 


(Divbtoiu  of  Pmlter.  197.  148.) 

i.  49.  264.  377.  439,  450.     ii.  438-9. 

in  .  iv.  446-7. 

v.  447  (n     *«.  447,  476  (4). 

viii.  407.  409.     x.  439. 

xi.  447  (4).     xiv.  228.  528 

zv.  447.     xvii.  377  (4). 


PSALMS— continued. 

xviii.  434.438, 446-7,528;  130(7  ff.); 

377  (21,  23). 

xix.  447  (1-6);  49,  264,  377  (7-14). 
xx.,  xxi.  438-9.     xxiii.,  xxiv.  447. 
xxv.  377.     xxvii.  447  (4-6). 
xxviii.  438.     xxix.,  xxxii.  447. 
xxxiii.  438-9. 

xl.  45(5);  158,322(6);  228(13-17). 
xii.  197  (19).     xlii.-l.  447. 
xliv.  435;  101  (1). 
xlvi.,  xlviii.  438,  448.     Ii.  447. 
liii.  228,  528. 

Iv.  447.     Ivii.  228  (7-11). 
Ix.  447;  228  (5-12);  438  (6  ff.). 
IxL,  Ixiii.  438,  447.    Ixviii.  130  (7  ff. ). 
Ixx.  228.     Ixxii.  438,  448  (20). 
Ixxiv.  435;  451  (9). 
Ixxvii.  101  (12-20). 
Ixxviii.  101;  73(3,4). 
Ixxix.  435;  449  (2,  3).    Ixxx.  438(1). 
Ixxxiv.  438,447(1).   Ixxx  vi.  438  (8). 
Ixxx  vii.  35.     Ixxxix.  195  (52). 
xcvi.  450,  528;  123  (4,  5). 
xoix.  438.     ci.  438.  447. 
cii.  435.     civ.  407.     cv.  450,  528. 
ovi  450;  197  (48).     cviii.  228. 
ex.  438. 

cxix.  49,  264;  604  (45).     cxxiv.  435. 
oxxvi.  435.     cxxxii.  438  (8). 
cxxxv.  438  (6),  304  (20). 
cxxxvi.  438  (2). 
cxxxvii.  435;  439  (3,  4). 
ex  xx  viii.  438  (1). 
cxxxix.  438,  476. 


ISAIAH. 

i.  38  (2);  157-8,  324-5  (10-16). 

ii.  180,  462  (2);  123  (3). 

iv.  324  (5);  34  (22).     v.  38  (1-7). 

vi.  158;  451  (11-13). 

vii.  34.  461  (14).     xi.  38  (16). 

xiii.  458.     xvii.  139.  268  (7,  8). 

xix.  416(11);  139(19).     xx.  388  (1). 

XXMU.    35    (Hi). 

xxix.  324  (1);  38.  95-6  (22). 

xxx.  4 16  (2.  3);  439  (29). 

xxxii.  34  (1). 

xxxiii  34(15.16);  324(20);  96(24). 

xxxvii.  455  (26-36). 

i    461  (6). 
xxxix.  457  (5-7). 
xl.-lxvi.  95,  435,  458,  536. 
xii.  96  (8);  468  (21-8). 


554 


INDEXES 


ISAIAH — continued. 

xliii.  (7,  8,  25-28),  xliv.  (11,  19,  21), 

xlv.,  xlvi.,  xlviii.,  458. 
xlv.  34  (22,  23). 
li.  38,  92,  96,  101  (1,  2,  9,  10). 
liii.  33-4.     liv.  374,  407  (9). 
Iv.  45  (8,  9).     Ivi.  158  (6,  7). 
Ivii.,  Iviii.  458;  Iviii.  158  (13,  14). 
Ix.  34;  168(7). 
Ixi.  35,  305  (1,  2). 
Ixiii.  269  (1-6);  98-9  (11);  96  (15). 
Ixv.  458.     Ixvi.  158.  (23). 

JEREMIAH. 

it  101  (6);  38  (17).     v.  259  (30-1). 

vi.  259(3-8). 

vii.  317;  177-8(12);  157,  517(21- 

24). 

viii.  317;  504  (3);  259,  294  (8). 
xi.  100  (4).     xiv.  294  (14). 
xvii.  439,  450  (8);  158  (24-27). 
xviii.  464  (7-10).     xxii.  461  (18,19). 
xxiii.  34(5);  294(32). 
xxiv.  504  (9). 
xxv.  461;  457  (11,  12). 
xxvi.  178  (6);  464  (17-19). 
xxix.  504  (14).     xxxi.  34  (31-4). 
xxxii.  34  (39,  40);  139,  141  (35). 
xxxiii.  450;  95    (14-26);    158    (17, 

18);  38  (26). 
xxxiv.  251  (13  ff.). 
xxxviii.  461  (14  ff.). 
xl.  504(12).  xliii.  416. 
xliv.  324  (10);  416  (30). 
xlv.  604(5).     xlvi.  416  (17). 
xlvii.  416  (1);  530  (4). 
xlviii.   132  (7).     xlix.  269  (17,  18). 
liii.  322(10). 

EZKKIKL. 

v.  308,  324  (6).     viii.  317. 

xi.  308,  324  (12). 

xiii.  294(6,7,19);  519(13). 

xxviii.  428(3). 

xxxi.  416  (2,  18).     xxxii.  416  (2). 

xxxiii.  38,  95-6  (24).     xxxiv.  504. 

xxxvi.  34  (26,  27). 

xl.-xlviii.  158,  181,  289,  306-7. 

xl.  307,  322  (39),  317,  520  (45,  40). 

xlii.  322(13).    xliii.  322(19);  519(27). 

xliv.   183,  316.  318  (3,  4  ff.);  191-2 

(11,  15);  307,  322,  519  (29-31). 
xlv.   183(7-23);  519(17). 


EZBKTKL — continued. 

xlvi.  322,  519  (20). 
xlvii.  462;  450(12). 
xlviii.  317,  520  (13). 

DANIEL. 

i.-vi.  428.     i.  457  (1  ff.). 

ii.  536;  458  (31  ff.). 

v.  536  (31).     vi.  537  (8,  12,  15). 

vii.-xii.  428. 

vii.  536;  458  (1  ff.);  537  (3,  6-8,  24). 

viii.  536  (29).     ix.  637. 

HOSBA. 

ii.  326(8);  100(15). 
iii.  139  (4);  180  (5). 
iv.  471  (2,  10-14);  325  (4,  6);  322 

(8);  211  (15). 
viii.  38,  100  (1);  145,  152,  158,  325 

(11-13). 
ix.  325(3-5). 

xi.  101(1);  38(1-4);  325(8). 
xii.  97  (5,   6,    12);  325  (7,  8,   13); 

321-2  (9);  98,  101  (13). 
xiii.  141,  145(2);  325(6). 

JOEL. 

i.  324  (9,  13,  14). 

ii.  324(1,  15-17);  34(28-9). 

iii.  269(19). 

AMOS. 
i.  180(2). 
ii.  38,    324-5    (4);     38,     101   (10); 

121,  143  (25-6). 
iii.  38,  125  (1,  2);  146  (14). 
iv.  275  (4). 
v.  146,   211    (4,   6);  324   (21,   22); 

121  157,  268,  364,  456  (21-7). 
vi.  445  (5).     vii.  89,  97  (9,  16). 
viii.  146,211(14).     ix.  530(7). 


JONAH. 


ii.  450  (2-10). 

MlOAH. 

iii.  457(12).     iv.   180(2);  457(10). 
v.  34,461  (2,  3);  139(13). 
vi.  38,  96  (3,  4);  44,  140  (7,  8). 
vii.  98  (4);  38,  95-6  (20). 


INDEXES 


555 


i.  324  (15). 
iii.  449(19). 
ii.  34  (11). 

ii.  34(6,7 


NAIU-M. 
HABAKKUK. 

Z«PHA5IAH. 
HAGGAI. 


ZBCHARIAH. 
iii  297  (1);  34  (8).    yL  34  (12). 

MALA  cm. 

i.  296  (6-14). 

iii.  185(1):  296(7-15). 

IT.  98,  370  (4). 


MATTHXW. 

T.  3,  38,  477  (17,  18);  470  (43-5). 

XT.  3  (3,  6).     xix.  467  (3-9). 

ui  3(42). 

xxii.  3  (29,  31,  32);  99  (40). 

xxiii.  464  (37-8). 

XXIT.  459;  536  (15). 


L  77  (1).    iT.  35  (18). 

x.  470(29-37);  304(32). 

xxiT.  3  (24,  27);  3,  449,  481  (44). 

JOB*. 

L  304  (19).     z.  3(35). 

xiT.  49(26).     xx.  49,  51  (31). 

Aon. 

ir.  304  (36).     TU.  79  (22). 

ix.  419  (27-30).     xxi.  459  (10.  11). 


Aon — continued. 

xxri  103  (26). 

xxrii.  459  (10,  21,  22). 

ROMANS. 

L  3  (2).     iii.  472  (6).     r.  457  (20). 
xL  459  (23-4).     XY.  49  (4). 

1  CORINTHIANS. 

x.  123  (20,  21).     xiii.  140  (3). 

2  COBIMTHIA.KS. 

iii.  3  (14);  179  (6).     xii.  462  (1-4). 

EPH«SIANS. 
iiL  36  (3,  9). 

COLOSSIANS. 

L  36  (26). 

2  THSSSALOHIANS. 
ii.  459  (1-10). 

HKBRIWS. 

ix.,  x.  326.     ix.  35,  305  (7  ff.) 
x.35(l).    xi.  110(17-19). 

2TIMOTHT. 

iii.  3.  49  (15-17). 

1  PKTXB. 
ii.  35(6). 

2PKTXB. 

i.  3(21).     iiL  465(4). 


T.  51  (20). 


1   Ji.IIV 


RBTXLATIOH. 

i.459(l-3).     ii.  35(7). 
xix.  33  (10)      xxii.  35  (2). 


Ill 


NAMES  AND  SUBJECTS 

(Dotted  line  indicates  that  intervening  pages  are  included  in  reference*.) 


AARONIC  priesthood,  180  ff .,  504, 505. 

Abraham,  historicity  of,  see  Patri- 
archs ;  character  of,  108-9 ;  sacri- 
fice of  Isaac,  110,  475. 

Addis,  W.  E.,  54,  56,  68,  70,  74, 
108,  122,  135-6,  153-4,  156,  161, 
182,  204.  208,  210,  212,  216,  218, 
220,  225,  230-1,  233,  279,  310, 
336,  338,  346,  350,  352,  354,  357, 
363,  503,  531. 

Angel  of  Jehovah,  112-3. 

Anthropomorphisms,  125. 

Archaeology,  discoveries  in  Assyria, 
Babylonia,  Egypt,  Crete,  Pales- 
tine, etc.,  78 ff.;  396,  418 ff., 
532-3;  at  Gezer,  499-500;  ancient 
libraries,  397-8;  relation  to  tra- 
ditions in  Genesis,  80,  399  ff. 
For  details,  see  tabular  Contents, 
Chap.  XI. 

Ark  of  covenant,  137,  161  ff. 

Astruc,  196. 

BABTHOKN,  F.,  93,  133;  on  psalms, 
435,  438-9,  449. 

Baudissin,  W.  W.  Graf,  26,  182, 
299,  307,  313,  327,  505,  521. 

Bennett,  W.  H.,  67,  68,  97,  105, 
206,  211,  214-5,  233,  242,  352, 
367,  420,  426,  437,  493,  526. 

Bible,  organic  unity  of,  30,  31 ; 
contrast  with  other  sacred  books, 
31,  484-5 ;  teleology  in,  35  ff.,  42, 
61  ff. ;  Christ  the  centre  of,  50,  51. 
Cf.  Contents,  Chap.  II. 

Bleek,  J.,  57,  73,  198-9,  201-2, 
209,  217,  249-50,  260,  288,  302, 
333,  341,  374,  381,  385,  388-9, 
435,  437,  524,  528. 

Von  Bohlen,  P.,  17,  287,  374,  492, 
517. 


Book  of  Covenant,  80,  99,  152,  154, 
176,  231,  247-8,  254,  268,  274, 
276,  370-1,  376,  620. 

Briggs,  C.  A.,  539. 

Bruce,  A.  B.,  45,  470,  472,  475-6, 
539 

Brugsch,  H.  K.,  397,  417,  423,  425, 
533. 

Budde,  K.,  on  Yahweh,  120;  on 
decalogue,  120,  128;  on  Kenite 
origin  of  Yahweh  worship,  129  ff. ; 
on  Exodus,  493:  102,  119,  126-7, 
131,  133,  135,  144,  213,  215,  226, 
232,  240-1,  347,  350,  379,  382, 
404,  409,  485,  488,  509. 

Budge,  E.  A.  W.,  402,  496. 

CANON,  Jewish,  3,  481  ff. ;  law, 
370 ff.;  psalms,  448 ff. 

Carpenter,  J.  E.,  56,  98,  118,  152, 
154,  161,  207-8,  209-12,  214-6, 
238,  261,  268,  277,  309-10,  334, 
336,  347-8,  352,  360.  See  Oxford 
Hexateuch. 

Cave,  A.,  197...9, 217, 335,  340,  527. 

Cheyne,  T.  K.,  2,  6,  17,  56,  68-9, 
127,  195,  258,  286,  405,  407,  429, 
434-5,  437-8,  440,  442,  446, 
448-9,  509,  513-4,  527,  631,  536. 

Christ  and  O.T.,  4,  38,  623. 

Chronicles,  Books  of,  assaults  on, 
58,  388,  635;  credibility  of, 
389-91,  426-7. 

Code  of  Hammurabi,  79,  115,  128, 
154,  263,  410. 

Colenso,  J.  W.,  influence  of,  57, 
362;  critical  positions,  74,  156, 
198-9,  200,  202,  218,  334-5, 
340-1,  343,  352-4,  373-4;  his 
arithmetical  objections,  102, 
362  ff.,  522-3:  64,  104,  127,  219, 


556 


INDEXES 


557 


225,  227,  237.  250,  254-5,  2oS, 

2*0.  309,  492,  613. 
Condw,  C.  P..,  422,  424,  525. 

.  C.,  415,421-2,494,533. 

B     88,  213-4,  252,  258, 
310,  490,  508.  516. 
Covenant,  Mosaic,  100,  491. 

ism.  Higher,  difficulties  arising 
from,  5ff. :  nature  and  Ircitimacy 
.  10 ;  crucial  points  in,  25  IT. ; 
dence    on    presuppositions, 
:    85  ff. :  rationalistic  "set" 
name,  197;  stadia 
in     development     of,      196    ff. ; 
!s  of  critics,  7,  8,  5f>,   59, 
195;    fault    of   method,    HOff. ; 
extravagances    in,    488-9;    self- 
confidence     of     critics,     507-8; 
hypotheses    in,    526.     See    Well- 
hausen,   Km nt-n,   Craf,  etc. 
Cullen,  J.,  510. 

:EL,  Hook  of.  428,  458,  481-2, 
534,  536. 

Davidson,  A.  B.,  on  prophecy,  33, 
459,    461-2;     on     Israel     under 
Judges,    131.    383;  on    Ezekiel, 
308.   519:  8.    84,   93,    113,    121, 
126,   128,   136-7,   146,  313,  322, 
437,  451-2,  454,  457-8,  461-2. 
Davidson,  8.,  381,  389-90. 
Decalogue,   120,    128,    141.    152ff., 
: 

.  17,  20,  68,  362,  466. 
Dclitzsch,  F.,  on  decalogue,  152-3; 
on     tabernacle,     166,     173;    on 
early  KlohL-tic  writing,  54,  207, 
379-80;  on  Levites,  297  ff.,  304, 
317;     on     Lcvitical    laws,     309, 
313-14;  on    law    of    king,    615; 
on     psalms,    435-8,    447-8;  on 
prophecy,  464:    2,  8,  25,  80,  93, 
I-J1,  127".  182,  186,  194,  204,  235, 
J53-4,  260.  263-5,  269, 878* 
276,  290,  297,  299,  307-8.  323-5, 
339,  349,  350,  357,  372-3,  379, 
411,  413,  428.  505,  507. 
•zsch.  Fried.,  397,  404.  408-9. 
•«  ronotnv,   unity  and   style  of. 
•-'•">  1  ff,  511-2;  decomposition  of, 
250,     252.      510-1  :     theory     of 
fraud,  258  ff.,  513-4  ;  "medi- 
ating   views    of,   200-1,   264  ff.  : 
Mosaic  claim  of,  264 ff.;    unsuit- 
abtlity    to    Joaiah's    ngc,  20Off.. 
515;  unity  of  sanctuary,  173  If  , 


272-3;  priests  and  Levites,  184  ff.. 
191-2;  relation  to  older  laws, 
272,  31 1  ff. ;  n  repancics 

in  laws  and  history.  273  ff.  For 
details,  see  Contents,  Chaps. 
VI.  nnd  VIII. 

Dcutsch,  E.. 

De  Wette,  W.  M.  L.,  17,  123,  197, 
198,  199,  236,  249-50,  254,  260. 
•JC,3,  266,  286-7,  327.  388,  390. 

Dillmann,  A.,  on  religion  of  Israel, 
33 ;  on  redemptive  plan  in  O.T., 
62;  on  religious  ideas  of  patri- 
archs, 93-4 ;  on  written  laws,  100; 
on  early  Levitical  laws,  309,  313. 
328;  on  image  -  worship,  501; 
critical  theory  of,  327,  521 :  8,  20, 
43,  59,  65-6,  69,  71,  73,  113,  123, 
136,  138.  144,  161,  165,  16i>, 
181-2,  186-8,  202,  204-6.  208-9, 
211,  217-18,  220-1,  225,  227, 
229,  232,  238,  253-4,  259,  S 
272,  276,  279,  281,  299,  302,  305, 
307,  317,  325,  333,  336,  338,  340, 
346,  349-50,  35G-7,  371,  374, 
.  iOS,  411,413,435,  501-2, 
620,  ;VJ7. 

Divine  names,  113-4;  Jehovah 
(Vahweh),  66,  114,  -.24-5,  495, 
497;  usage  in  Pentateuch,  66, 
196 ff..  2'JlfT.. 

Driver,  8.  R.,  on  canon,  481  ff. ;  on 
patriarchs,  59,  4 14  ff. ;  on  sobriety 
of  Genesis,  105-6;  on  dates  of 
J  and  £,  66-7;  on  style  of  J 
and  £,  219,  230;  on  style  of 
D,  2.~>3  ff. ;  on  priests  and  Levites, 
191-2;  on  pre- exilian  nsnge 
and  law,  272.  SOOff..  311  ff; 
on  Law  of  Ho!ine-s  309:  on 
discrepancies,  etc..  300-7.  493-4 ; 
on  Hebrew  writing,  375.  525;  on 
psalms,  .) ;  on  Daniel. 

530 ff.:  8.  26,  37,  57,  (' 

lUl-2.    Ill,    114-6,    161, 

101.  171.  176,  187,205,211.  213. 

218,     221    4,     22S-.33, 

262   6,  259-60,  'J  '-70, 

•-'74,  277,  281,  282,  306-13,  316, 

:;iti,  330,341,  34l»,  373, 

379,  382,  384    7,  4(12 --4,  406-7, 

<  12,  421,  426,  430,  440,  448, 

175,  483.  498,  505,  509,  615, 

'.  527-8,  638. 

Duhm,  B.,  13,  21,  68,  133,  139, 
159,  266.  286,  324,  434-6. 


558 


INDEXES 


EICHHORW,  J.  G.,  21,  17,  197. 
Ewald,  G.  H.  A.,  10,  64,   74,  88, 

93,  95,  123,   198,  260,  287,  435, 

447,  505,  518. 
Exodus,  fundamental  fact  in  Israel's 

history,  100  ff.;  witness  of  national 

consciousness  to,  38,  87,  100  ff.; 

difficulties     regarding,     364    ff.  ; 

critical  theories  of,   103,  492-3; 

date  of,  104,  422  ff. 
Ezekiel,  importance  of,  in  criticism, 

25,  306  ;  relation  to  earlier  laws, 

306  ff.,  519  ;  degradation  of  priests 

in,    181,    184,  315   ff.,  520.     See 

Contents,  Chap.  IX. 
Ezra,  introduction  of   the  law  by, 

290  ff.  ;  critical  views  on,  66,  291, 

295.     See  Contents,  Chap.  IX. 


,  A.  M.,  496. 
Flint,  R.,  460. 

GENESIS,  Book  of,  credibility  of, 
105  ff.  ;  contrast  with  Exodus, 
106,  115;  P  as  "framework" 
in,  24,  65,  201,  215,  340  ff.,  372; 
alleged  mirroring  of  later  events, 
74,  111-2,  209.  371-2  ;  early  date 
of,  372  ff. 

George,  J.  F.  L.,  25,  160,  287-8,  517. 

Gesenius,  W.,  10,  190,  195,  435,  451. 

Giesebrecht,  F.,  on  prophecy,  432, 
452,  455-6,  538;  on  covenant,  491. 

Gladstone,  W.   E.,  447,  612. 

Graf,  K.  H.,  place  in  criticism,  160, 
199  ff.:  on  Deut.,  248-9;  on 
"  circle"  of  criticism,  194;  views 
on  history  and  laws,  200,  334-5; 
on  independence  of  P,  201,  334, 
341:  5,  17,  25-6,  56,  95,  164-6, 
171-2,  177,  182,  202,  204,  251-2, 
271,  277,  287-8,  301,  307-9, 
316,  326,  328,  358,  373,  388,  390, 
517. 

Gray,  G.  B.,  57,  169,  248,  469,  508. 

Green,  W.  H.,  17,  150,  175,  180, 
224,  232-3,  263,  269,  337,  503-4, 
614. 

Gunkel,  H.,  on  date  of  patriarchal 
traditions,  74,  111-2,  124,  209; 
on  critical  treatment  of  prophets, 
96  ;  theory  of  patriarchal  history, 
112,  494;  on  creation  and  flood 
stories,  etc.,  403—11;  on  mono- 
theism of  Israel,  118,  124;  on 
N.T.,  478:  13,  21,  61.  69,  70-1, 


126,  212,  218,  226,  347,  397,  401, 
486,  509. 

HEBREW  text,  527-8. 
Hengstenberg,    E.    W.,    224,    235, 

263,  367,   516,   523;  his   school, 

201,  224,  263,  388-90  (Keil),  435. 
Hexateuch,    the    name,    65,    198; 

discussions      regarding,     213—6. 

See  J  and  E,  P,  Joshua,  etc. 
High  places,  178-80,  267,  290. 
Hilprecht,  H.  V.,  394,  398-9,  425. 
History,  revelation  ia  facts  of,  45, 

485-6.     See  Israel. 
Hommel,  F.,  60,  104,  110,  209,  375, 

394,   397,   401,   408-12,   421-4, 

497,  525,  630. 
Van    Hoonacker,    A.,    163-4,    168, 

175,   182-6,  212,  273,  275,  317, 

354,  388-9,  505,  520. 
Hupfeld,  H.,  57,  198  ff.,  202,  217, 

218-19,  233-4,  351,  435. 

IMAGE-WORSHIP  in  Israel,  40,  122, 
141  ff.;  prophets  and  calf- worship, 
145  ff.  See  Contents,  Chap.  V. 

Inspiration,  tests  of,  49-50;  re- 
lation to  its  materials,  486-7. 

Israel,  history  of:  critical  view 
of,  56  ff.,  60,  86-7 ;  teleological 
character  of,  35  ff.,  42  ff.,  6 Iff.; 
trustworthiness  of,  see  Contents, 
Chaps.  III.,  IV. 

Religion  of:  comparison  with 
other  religions,  11,  39  ff.,  134; 
critical  theory  of  pro- prophetic  re- 
ligion, 86, 126,  133 ff.;  idea  of  God 
in,40ff.,  47,  113ff.,  123  ff.,  133; 
moral  character  of,  43  ff . ;  need 
of  supernatural  factor  for  ex- 
plaining, 10,  44  ff.  See  tabular 
Contents,  Chaps.  II.  to  VI. 

JEHOVAH  (Yahweh).  66.  See  Divine 
Names. 

Johns,  C.  H.  W.,  115,  154,  410. 

Joshua,  Book  of,  relation  to  Penta- 
teuch, 213  ff. ;  Are  J  ami  K 
present?  214ff. :  peculiarities  of 
P  in,  315ff. ;  historicity  of,  57, 
239  ff..  379. 

Judges,  Book  of,  religious  character 
of,  131,  143,  384;  unity  of  Israel 
in,  383  ff . ;  exaggeration  of 
numbers  in,  385;  date,  385. 


INDF.Xr.S 


559 


.1  and  E  document*  in  critical 
theory.  41.  05-6;  date*  of.  66-7. 

I  :    }«rallfl> 

i     JH;  relations  to  P.   H'7. 
J:     |.rf-iiro|ihetii-, 
'.•7 ;     origin     ana     extent, 
J08    ff.  ;     stylistic 
features.    66.    219.  230  fT 
they  two  or  one?  199. 208.  "2[f>  fT. ; 
interrelation*.  219.  234  fl.;   with 
P.  34C  IT. ;  divine  names  in.  - 
alleged  "duplicates"  in.  236 ff., 
30 Iff.      See     tabular    Contents, 
Chap.  VII. 

-I'M.  E.,  on  value  of  O.T., 
ic HI.  4:5 J.  4.r>4-"j:  on  literature 
of  O.T..  70-7.  374;  on  legis- 
lation of  Moses,  99;  on  ! 
|i'-J.  4:M;  on  early  reli.- 
Israel.  1-21.  l-J'i.  !-'>.  i:il.  i:;»tl.: 
on  image  -  worship,  153;  on 
priestly  law,  292.  308;  on  de- 
gradation of  orients,  318;  on 
Book  of  Judges,  382;  on  Books 
of  Samuel,  386-7;  on  covenant 
with  Israel.  491:  68.  78,  84, 
126.  128.  135.  137.  154.  182. 
209-12.  218-19.  222.  2J 

316,   332.  340-1,  350.  360, 
379.  519.  531. 

Kennedy.  A.  R.  8..  137.  161.  394. 

Kirkpatrick.  A.  P..  32.  54.  93. 
227-8.  324.  381-8,  435-6.  439. 
448,  449.  460. 

Kittel,  R.,  on  recent  discoveries, 
79,  632-3;  on  origin  of  early 
traditions,  408,  530;  on  written 
law,  302 ;  theory  of  priestly  law, 
327,  621 :  8.  69,  66.  72.  122,  129. 
131.  141.  153-4.  186.  203-4.  209, 
211,  213-16.  253.  259-60.  279. 
281.  295,  299.  304.  307.  313,  322. 
404,  406.  409-11,  416.  419. 
606. 

Kloetermann,  A.,  on  divine  names, 

••;    critical   theory  of.  218. 

228-9.  346,   622:    72,   74.   93-4. 

160.     201.     204,     219-20,     260. 

308-9.  332,  388-9,  391.  413.  606. 

Kuhler.  A..  8,  74.  88.  140.  204. 
240,  349.  864,  367-8,  362,  368, 
386,422. 

Kunig,  F.  E.,  on  theory  of  per- 
sonifications. 91.  490;  on  Book  of 
Joshua.  240-2;  on  Book  of 


Judges,  382—5,  528;  on  Baby- 
lonian monotheism.  409:  8,  59. 
74.  76.  88.  93.  98.  123,  12(,.  m. 
138-9,  142-3,  189,  204.  -_M3, 
228,  260.  316.  350.  413. 
Kucnen,  A.,  anti-supernaturalism 
of,  12  ff.,  453;  on  prophecy,  12. 
1 3.  453. 466-6. 538 ;  early  views  of, 
517-8;  relations  with  Graf. 
200-1,  334-5;  on  patriarchs  as 
personifications,  60,  88  ff.;  on 
early  religion  of  Israel.  93,  126  ff. ; 
on  ark  of  covenant,  I61ff.;  on 
Deut.,  252,  258-9,  261-2,  513; 
on  prophets  and  sacrifice,  158; 
on  use  of  divine  names,  222-3: 
4,  17,  21,  22,  25,  36,  40,  47,  66-7, 
69,  61,  66,  fi8,  72,  87,  91,  96. 
98,  104,  111,  115,  121-3,  125, 
128,  130,  137,  139-146,  154. 
156,  172,  181,  183,  194,  202-6, 
209-13,  216,  220-22,  230-2. 
236,  266-7,  269,  274.  276, 
287-9,  291-2,  295,  302,  305. 
307,  310.  313,  316,  322,  327. 
338-9,  340-8,  350-2.  354, 
360,  362-3,  367.  371,  374,  434, 
451-2,  459,  492.  497,  608.  531. 
535.  538. 

LADD,  G.  T.,    13,  45,  49,  60,  80, 

118,  264.  639. 
Law  of  Holiness,  160,  308  ff.,  313. 

328,  376.     See  P  Writing. 
Levitea,  163;  in  Deut..  184  ff.,  191- 

2;    silence    regarding,    304;    in 

Kzekiel,  316  ff.,   520;  at   return. 

297-9.     See  Priesthood. 
Lohr.  M.,  381,  528. 

MACALUTBB,  A.,  499. 

McFadyen,  J.  E.,  62,  68,  200,  212. 
233,  237,  358,  509. 

Maine,  H.  8.,  92. 

Margoliouth,  D.  8..  440.  444.  447. 

Maurice,  F.  D.,  442.  446. 

"  Modern "  view  of  Bible  and  re- 
ligion, 12  ff. 

Monotheism,  fundamental  in  re- 
ligion of  Israel,  40  ff..  47,  93  ff., 
123 a.;  pervades  O.T..  41,  124 ff.; 
implied  in  decalogue,  120.  128; 
denial  of.  by  critics,  47,  136ff.; 
Wellhausen's  theory  of,  127-8; 
not  the  creation  of  prophets,  68, 
13.1:  not  r..il,J..iiian.  118.  126, 


5<5o 


INDEXES 


403-4,  408-9;  substratum  of,  in 
historical  religions,  128,  409, 
496-7. 

Moore,  Q.  F.,  121,  382,  384-5. 

M.>ral  difficulties  of  O.T.,  465  ff., 
539.  Sec  tabular  Contents,  Chap. 
XII. 

Moses,  personality  of,  38,  98  ff., 
116;  place  in  tradition  as  legis- 
lator, 98  ff.,  152  ff. ;  critical  mini- 
mising of  witness  to,  98,  152, 
286. 

Mozley,  J.  B.,  84,  110,  472,  474-6. 

Mythology,  absence  of,  in  O.T., 
39,  485-6. 

XEW  Testament  fulfils  the  Old, 
32  ff.,  459-60,  477;  stands  or 
falls  with  the  Old,  7,  13,  400, 
477-80. 

NSldeke,  T.,  26,  57,  67,  73,  204, 
307,  309,  327,  351,  411. 

OEKLER,  G.  F.,  113,  114,  451. 

Oettli,  S.,  8,  59,  93,  204,  253,  260, 
264,  268-9,  272,  274,  277.  313- 
14,  357,  384,  401,  406,  408-9, 
510-1,  531. 

Von  Orelli,  C.,  8,  33,  37,  235,  324, 
428,  452,  457. 

Ottley,  R.  L.,  2,  18,  37,  42,  114, 
381,  485,  539. 

Oxford  "  Hexateuch,"  98,  162, 
176,  182,  192,  201,  205-0,  220, 
239,  250,  353-4,  358-(J,  361,  407, 
509.  See  Carpenter. 

PATRIARCHS,  critical  denial  of  his- 
toricity of,  57,  59-60,  94  ff.,  494; 
theory  of  personifications,  60, 
88  ff. ;  trustworthiness  of  tradi- 
tion, 67  ff. ;  witness  of  national 
consciousness,  91  ff. ;  of  prophets, 
94  ff. ;  credibility  of  narratives, 
lOt  ff. ;  unity  of  picture  of,  107-8; 
historicity  of  Abraham,  89-90, 
108;  witness  of  archeology,  80, 
90,  40:)ff.;  religion  of,  60,  93-4, 
125  ff.,  134  ff.,  142,  156.  See 
tabular  Contents,  Chaps.  III.- 
VI.,  XI. 

Pentateuch,  critical  theory  of, 
65  ff. ;  crucial  points  in  theory, 
25-6;  stagos  in  critical  develop- 
ment, 196 ff.,  333 ff.:  difficulties 
of  theory,  202  ff.,  340  ff.;  Mosaic 


basis  of,  80- 1 ,  369  ff.  See  J  and  E, 
Priestly  Writing,  Deuteronomy, 
and  tabular  Contents,  Chaps. 
VII.-X. 

Perowne,  J.  J.  S..  439,  440.  448. 

Petrie,  W.  M.  Flinders,  418,  421- 
23,  425,  429. 

Pinches,  Th.,  401,  403,  409,  420, 
425,  427,  429,  430,  533. 

Priesthood  in  Israel,  Levitical,  162- 

3,  181,   183-5;   Aarouic,   180  ff., 
504-5;   high   priest,    181-3,  311; 
priests  and  Levites,   184  ff.,  191- 
2,    274;    degradation    of    priests 
in   Ezekiel,    184,   316 ff.;    priests 
and    Levites    at   return,    297—9; 
Colenso  on  duties  of,  364,  522-3; 
in  Chronicles,   388.     See  tabular 
Contents,  Chaps.  VI.,  IX.,  X. 

Progress! veness  of  Revelation,  33- 

4,  465   ff.     See  Contents,    Chap. 
XII. 

Prophecy,  nature  of  O.T.,  452 ff.: 
denial  of  supernatural  clement 
in,  12-3,  453,  538;  greatness 
of,  432;  prediction  in,  455 ff.; 
canons  01  interpretation  of, 
460  ff. ;  Messianic  prophecy,  32-5, 
459-60.  See  Contents,  Chap.  XII. 

Prophets  and  calf- worship,  145-7; 
relation  to  ritual,  155 ff.,  323  ff.; 
Wellhausen  on,  64,  68,  70. 

Psalms,  Book  of,  divisions  of 
Psalter,  197;  divine  names  in, 
277  ff. ;  theory  of  post-exilian 
origin,  434  ff. ;  proofs  of  prc- 
exilian  psalms  and  psalmody, 
438  ff.,  450;  David  as  psalmist, 
440 ff.;  Davidio  psalms,  446-7; 
collection  of  psalms  and  place 
in  Canon,  448  ff.  See  tabular 
Contents,  Chap.  XII. 

P  Writing  in  critical  theory, 
older  views,  74,  199;  theory  of 
exilian  or  post-exilian  origin, 
25,  65,  199  ff.,  287  ff.,  333  ff.; 
age  of,  54,  207,  372,  379-80. 

The  Code. :  Graf- Wellhausen 
theory  of,  288 ff.;  difficulties  of 
theory,  292  ff. ;  pre-exilian  usage, 
300  ff. ;  proof  of  earlier  existence 
of  laws,  305  ff . ;  institutions  of, 
315  ff.;  mediating  theories  of, 
326 ff.;  Mosaic  origin,  328. 

The  document :  distinct  from 
JE,  335-6 ;  vocabulary  and 


TNDi-'.xr.s 


561 


•tyK    66,    336   ft*  :     parallel    to 
26,    M.    71.     107.     344-5; 
imposes    JE.    26,    6T>.     i:»i. 
.  36O--2;  "frame- 
work"   to  G  .    65,  201, 

215,  340  ff.,  37'2:  plaoo  in  middle 
boolu  an.l  .l.-lm.i.  _M  • 
1;  not  an  in>i< -i>  •mli-iit  d  •••urnont, 
23-1.  'JO  I.  3">l-:,.  :i»l  IT.:  mt.T- 
relation"  with  .IK.  3-1 » iff.;  his- 
torical credibility  of.  359  ff.: 
alleged  silence  on  patriarchal 
MM-rifioe,  156,  348,  360.  See 
tabular  Content*.  Chaps.  VII.. 
IX..  X. 

Rntour.  P.  lo  Page,  128,  496. 
Kens*.    E.,   teacher   of  Graf.   200. 

2H7:  66,  67,  209,  241,  258,  'JTJ. 

288,  307,  324,  347,  374,  4., 

440,  513,  535. 
l.'.-vi-lation.    ambiguity     in     term,  i 

21 :    claim    of    O.T.  religion  to  ' 

an  origin  in,  20,  44  ff. ;  unique- 

noM  of  claim,  46  ff. 
Riehm,   E..  8.  34.   66,  73,    153-4.  ' 

200.  204,  200,  266,  268,  293-4, 

313.  385,  447.  449,  452,  518. 
R 'berf.«on.     J.,     on     history     and 
>u.  8,  40,  62.  81,  88,  90, 

111.     130,    165,    176,    180,    200, 

204,    ±)3,    301,    324,    383,    390; 

oo  psalms,  435.  438-9,  446,  448. 

450:  486.  489. 
Ryle,  H.  E.,  26,  309,  483,  507-8, 

M9. 

SACRIFICE,  pre- Mosaic,  156,  108* 
360:  Mosaic  institution,  155  ff. : 
law  of  Ex.  xx.  24,  175  ff. :  in 
Samuel's  time,  178-9;  in  Dent., 
173-t.  177-8.273,  314;  prophets 
and.  156  ff..  324-5:  Levitical 
law  uni'i  .  518. 

Samaritan  Pentateuch,  370.  624. 

Samuel,  at  Shiloh,  172-3,  189; 
his  sacrifice.  178-9;  picture 
<>f.  in  history.  387 ;  founder  of 
prophetic  guilds,  451. 

Sayre,  A.  H.,  79,  397,  404,  409. 
412,  414-17.  420-1,  424-6,  427-8. 
430,  526,  632-3. 

" Schools"  of  J.  E,  D.  P,  in 
.  -JtMiil..  -J13,  250, '25-J. 
335,  609.  See  Content*,  than. 
VIL 

36 


Schroder.  E.,  67.  73,  202,  204. 
200.  211.  213.  307.  400,  404. 
406-7,  416.  427.  508. 

Schultz.  H.,  36,  45,  67,  07.  73. 
113-4.  133,  I3S.  141.  143-4, 
434,  497,  618. 

Sec-ley,  J.  R.,  470.  470. 

1,    R..    13.    113,    lf.3.    158-9, 
257,  300. 

Smith,  G.  A.,  on  Christ  and  O.T., 
3;  on  revelation  in  Israel,  8,  10; 
on  Semitic  religious,  41;  on 
P  element  in  Joshua,  215:  on 
Isaiah,  437,  536. 

Smith,  II.  P.,  on  patriarchs,  89, 
94  ff.:  on  ark,  137,  103:  on 
Samuel,  101:  on  Books  of  Samuel, 
386-7;  on  brazen  serpent,  143, 
500-1;  on  Ezra,  66,  291,  295; 
on  David,  635:  66,  58,  60-1. 
88,  124-6,  141,  182,  213,  257, 
427,  531. 

Smith,  J.,  88. 

Smith,  W.  R.,  on  Wellhausen 
criticism,  56-7,  200;  on  revela- 
tion, 19  ff.,  45;  on  patriarchal 
history,  97 ;  on  Sinaitic  legisla- 
tion, 100;  on  Jehovah  as  tribal 
god,  132;  on  sacred  pillars.  122, 
138;  on  tree-worship,  130;  on 
totemism,  139:  totem  theory  of 
sacrifice.  498-9;  on  Samuel,  172, 
178-9,  189-90;  on  prophets  and 
sacrifice,  156-7;  on  prophets  and 
calf- worship,  145-6;  on  Deut., 
184,  257,  269-60,  281,  511-2; 
on  origin  of  Priestly  Code.  291 ; 
on  psalms,  228,  436-6,  439-40. 
448,  450:  15,  28,  126, 138,  141-2. 
152,  177,  247,  296,  316-7,  604, 
524.  807. 

Stade,  B..  on  Israel  in  Egypt, 
66,  492;  on  the  patriarchs.  91; 
on  presence  and  power  of  Yahweh. 
130:  on  early  religion  of  Israel, 
130  ff.:  4,  13,  17,  64,  66.68,73. 
91.  119,  122,  126-7,  132-3, 
137,  139.  143,  146,  203,  242, 
257-8,  324.  434.  486.  631. 
535. 

Steuernagel,  C.,  214,  284. 

Strack.  H.  L.,  8,  59,  108,  100.  212. 
982.  880.  384-6. 

Superstitions,  alleged,  in  Israel: 
fetinhism.  animism,  worship  of 
an  co*  torn.  totcmUm,  etc.,  39, 


562 


INDEXES 


133ff.      See     tabular     Contents, 
Chap.  V. 
Swete,  H.  B..  528. 

TABKRNACLB,  critical  theory  of, 
IfiO,  164-5,  289;  in  JE  a  d  P, 
107  ff. ;  evidence  of  hannonv, 
1G8  ff. ;  historicity  of,  170-3; 
in  Code,  289,  297;  Colenso  on, 
363-4,  522. 

Tel  el-Amarna  letters,  79,  81,  124, 
242,  420,  423-4,  500,  525. 

Thatcher,  G.  W.,  121,  143,  382-4. 

Tomkins,  H.  G.,  413,  417,  494. 

VATKE,  W.,  5,  8,  13,  17,  56,  121, 
123,  139,  286-7,  306,  517. 

WATSON.  R,  on  Genesis,  115. 

Wellhausen,  J.,  relation  to  pre- 
decessors, 5,  13,  200,  influence 
of,  17,  56,  200,  291,  327;  on 
patriarchs,  88  ff.,  95  ff.,  109,  135; 
on  early  religion  of  Israel,  126, 
129  ff. ;  ideas  of  world  and  human- 
ity, 127;  on  Exodus,  103,  493; 
on  decalogue,  128,  141 ;  on 
sacrifice,  157;  on  tabernacle, 
165,  172;  on  Deut.,  249  ff.,  252, 
296;  on  unity  of  sanctuary, 
160.  174  ff.,  273:  on  priesthood. 


181  ff.,  31C.  504-5;  on  pro-exilian 
cultus,  159,  303:  on  parallel- 
ism of  J  a  'd  E,  218;  on  paral- 
lelism of  P  with  JE,  65,  71, 
107,  344-5;  on  JE  and  P  in 
Joshua,  214  ff. ;  on  Priestly  Code, 
288  ff. ;  on  Ezekiel  and  law,  25, 
316;  on  passover,  301,  320 ff.; 
on  psalms,  434-5;  on  N.T., 
478:  4,  14-5,  57-8,  61,  63-4, 
66,  68,  70,  74-6,  121,  123-4, 
132,  145,  151-6,  161,  166-7, 
171,  177,  190,  204-5,  220,  222, 
230-3,  238,  257-8,  267,  270-1. 
276,  281,  290,  292-8,  300, 
302,  305-8,  311,  321-2,  326-8, 
332-5,  336,  338,  340-2,  347-8, 
350,  356-8,  361-2,  372,  379, 
388,  405,  411,  440,  455-6,  485 
497,  507-8,  513,  531,  535. 

Westphal,  A.,  8,  72,  198,  203,  211, 
213,  231,  253,  260,  274,  276,  336. 

Wilson,  R.  D.,  429,  534. 

Wiuckler,  H.,  59,  90,  397,  406, 
409,  420,  424,  488. 

Woods,  F.  H.,  57,  106,  204,  483. 

Writing,  Hebrew,  80-1,  263,  265-6, 
374-5,  525. 

ZOCKLER,  O.,  on  Chronicles,  389- 
90. 


THE   BROSS    LECTURES,    1904 


THE  BIBLE 

Its  Origin  and  Nature 

BY  THE  REVEREND 

MARCUS   DODS,   D.D. 

Professor  of  Exegetical   Theology 
in  New  College,  Edinburgh 

i2mo.      $1.00    net 

Postage,  12  Cents 


CONTENTS 

The  Bible  and  Other  Sacred  Books 

The  Canon  of  Scripture 

Revelation 

Inspiration 

Infallibility 

The  Trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels 

The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Gospels 


"  He  exhibits  such  good  sense  and  candor  in 
turning  over  and  over  the  large  problems  of 
biblical  criticism,  thought  evolution,  and  the  prac- 
tical value  of  Bible  truth,  that  the  reader  soon 
follows  him  as  he  would  a  guide  who  thoroughly 
understands  the  road.  .  .  .  His  spirit  is  not 
simply  one  of  tolerance  for  the  other  side  of  the 


THE   BIBLE  :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 


question,  but  full  of  winning  power,  of  persuasive- 
ness, and  of  a  reasonableness  that  is  cognizant  of 
the  best  progressive  thought  of  the  times." 

—  The  Dial. 

"  Dr.  Dods,  a  master  of  his  subject,  is  a  candid 
but  conservative  thinker.  He  states  his  argument 
with  great  ability  and  meets  objectors  with  in- 
genuity and  skill." — The  Outlook. 

"It  is  candid,  honest,  and  helpful." 

— Lutheran  World. 

"  Dr.  Dods  writes  in  a  lucid,  attractive  man- 
ner."— Current  Literature. 

"  We  have  recently  seen  no  popular  handling 
of  the  subject  so  clear,  learned,  and  satisfying." 

—  The  Congregationalist. 

"Dr.  Dods  speaks  with  authority,  yet  in  an 
untechnical,  simple,  almost  popular  manner, 
bringing  the  results  of  the  best  thought  of  the  day 
within  the  reach  of  even  young  people." 

—  The  Christian  Advocate,  New  York. 

"  Useful  and  instructive  ...  an  excellent 
example  of  moderate  criticism  at  its  best." 

—  The  Living  Church. 

"The  wide  knowledge  of  his  special  subject, 
as  well  as  the  sincere  earnestness  evinced  by 
Dr.  Dods,  impresses  the  reader." 

— Philadelphia  Public  Ledger. 


CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

PUBLISHERS  NEW   YORK 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


IOOM  ll/86SCTi«94*2 


I  II  I     I         I  I  II       HI!  I  >l  'f  J 

3  1205  00875  5686 


IX  SOUTHERN  RJQOMi  lefUftr  F» 


